3.0GHz 6-core 8th-gen i5 ok for graphics and music?

[familychoice]

Hi,

I've finally stretched my budget far enough for a 512gb SSD upgrade, but I'm still looking at a base model 27" 3.0GHz 6-core 8th-generation Intel Core i5 processor. I won't upgrade RAM via Apple, so will start with 8gb, but will add my own later.

I realise I'm looking a bit underpowered compared to others on here, but is the base model processor that bad an option? The 3.1GHz i5 is £200 more, and 3.7GHz 6-core 9th-generation Intel Core i5 processor £320 more - though that's a better deal upgrade wise.

I'll be using it for general web work, email, and lightweight Affinity Photo/designer work. The occasional bit of print work but nothing major. On my days off I'll be hooking up my external SSD with music software on it for a bit of noise making. This is currently attached to a Mid-2012 non-retina MBP, and runs ok so I'm guessing it'll run ok connected to the iMac. Affinity on the external SSD also runs pretty fast on the MBP, so again I'm hopeful for a speed boost with the base model iMac.

Thanks.

 

[macduke]

Yes.

 

[keysofanxiety]

That’s absolutely fine for what you need. The CPU is still very powerful and you made the right choice concentrating on fast I/O.

 

[Sir Ruben]

Yes that's more than enough for what you need. There are some on here that go way overboard with the spec for what they need. You often see people justifying it with claims of future proofing it for the next few years and in some cases that's fair, other times its just the quest for bigger and better with much of the power and space never used.

 

[mikey8811]

I am going for the same as you are only with 256 SSD. Hopefully that's not cutting it thin

 

[Sir Ruben]

I am going for the same as you are only with 256 SSD. Hopefully that's not cutting it thin

I came from a 1TB fusion drive and ordered a 256GB 2019 iMac, then I cancelled it because I didn't feel comfortable and reordered as a 512GB. I have to say that I am glad I did.

To give you an idea, I have a photos folder that is 250GB in size. I have complimented the internal storage with a 500GB Samsung T5 external SSD and I also have a 2TB external HDD.

I can always offload the photos folder in future as its already backed up on both the external SSD and HDD.

 

[tomscott1988]

You can look at it that it performs better than the 2017 top tier 7700K. In real life will perform much better because it doesn't throttle and you get 2 more cores... its not Hyperthreaded but in all honesty it doesn't really make that much difference.

Over 5000 single over 20000 multi whats not to like?

 

[mikey8811]

then I cancelled it because I didn't feel comfortable and reordered as a 512GB. I have to say that I am glad I did.

I wish I could afford the 512 Gb but the jump up in price from 256 Gb to 512 Gb is shocking. I am also considering the 2 Tb Fusion.

I went into the Apple store today - they don't have the new iMacs where I am yet. I rebooted the base 27 in 2017 iMac with a 1 Tb Fusion and compared it to rebooting the current MacBook Air with a 256 Gb SSD. The iMac was just a tad slower to startup and not really a big deal. Not sure if this is indicative of long term usage.

My usage isn't as much as yours as I am migrating from a 2008 MacBook. My iTunes library is 70 Gb, Photos is 35 Gb - they are currently on an external HDD anyway. OS and apps are around 100 Gb and iPhone backup is 20 Gb.

I presume if I have the OS and apps and iPhone backup on the SSD, I still have 136 Gb left on the iMac - don't know whether this is sufficient with time.

 

[familychoice]

Thanks for the replies guys.

That’s absolutely fine for what you need. The CPU is still very powerful and you made the right choice concentrating on fast I/O.

Yes that's more than enough for what you need. There are some on here that go way overboard with the spec for what they need. You often see people justifying it with claims of future proofing it for the next few years and in some cases that's fair, other times its just the quest for bigger and better with much of the power and space never used.

You can look at it that it performs better than the 2017 top tier 7700K. In real life will perform much better because it doesn't throttle and you get 2 more cores... its not Hyperthreaded but in all honesty it doesn't really make that much difference.
Over 5000 single over 20000 multi whats not to like?

Yeah this seems to be the consensus in another new thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/first-mac-what-spec-for-photography.2177617/ though one comment advises against the base model. I think it'll be fine though, I'm coping with a 2012 non-retina MBP and a thoroughly worn-out Windows PC so I'm sure it'll feel fast enough. My main concern was the power needed to keep that big screen going, and the latest OS.

I am going for the same as you are only with 256 SSD. Hopefully that's not cutting it thin

I feel your pain with the upgrade costs - but I'd recommend going with the 512 if you can. Even though you might not use all the space, having less empty space to work with could affect the performance, and future OS updates could take up more space.

I'm planning on using the internal 512 for OS, main apps, email, working files etc., and then using an external Samsung 500gb SSD I picked up for the MBP for general file storage. I think it cost me about £70 with a plastic caddy, and is about 8 times faster than my internal MBP HD. I've got another that's bootable and loaded with music software, which again works well with the MBP, so I'll use this with the iMac too.

Later in the year I'll add more RAM to the iMac, and get myself a dedicated 1tb external SSD.