Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

gnyf

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 27, 2014
17
5
Will be using it for LR and PS usage with external monitor.
Geekbench shows only minimal difference between the i5 and i7 despite the larger cache
 
You’re stuck with what you buy. I say get the best you can afford. I opted for the i9 and 32 GB of RAM with the upgraded video card and 512GB SSD.
 
No. Extra RAM and extra SSD priority. If you have extra to spend after maxing them, then consider it.

Storage really isn't that important once you have 1.5x-2.0x your needs. I have 512 in my 2018 i9 with 32GB of RAM, but I also have 200GB of iCloud storage, 10 TB of external USB 3.0 hard drives, 2 TB of flash USB-C and USB 3.0 drives, and 1 TB of SD cards fit for 4K recording used for storage. The i9 was more important than another 512GB of storage.

How often will most people be accessing over 512 GB of storage at a time? That's a question for the OP in this situation, but I rarely hit half that while running macOS as a host then Win10Pro and Ubuntu as VMs with two jobs and an expansive music and picture collection.

OP, don't go insane on storage if you don't need it. The processor is a better bet if you know you're not going to use more than 512 GB of storage.
 
The single threaded benchmark scores are actually pretty significant imo. 4600 vs 53-5400. I feel the multi threads have a decent difference as well. Real world? No idea lol
 
Storage really isn't that important once you have 1.5x-2.0x your needs. I have 512 in my 2018 i9 with 32GB of RAM, but I also have 200GB of iCloud storage, 10 TB of external USB 3.0 hard drives, 2 TB of flash USB-C and USB 3.0 drives, and 1 TB of SD cards fit for 4K recording used for storage. The i9 was more important than another 512GB of storage.

How often will most people be accessing over 512 GB of storage at a time? That's a question for the OP in this situation, but I rarely hit half that while running macOS as a host then Win10Pro and Ubuntu as VMs with two jobs and an expansive music and picture collection.

OP, don't go insane on storage if you don't need it. The processor is a better bet if you know you're not going to use more than 512 GB of storage.
I hate micro-managing files. Also know that once you're at 75-80% capacity full your drive will start to slow down noticibly.
 
I hate micro-managing files. Also know that once you're at 75-80% capacity full your drive will start to slow down noticibly.

I guess it just depends on needs. I don't have more than 200 GB of data that I want at any one time, but I have an infinite need (in my mind at least) for processing power because it can always be faster.

I only have the external drives and flash drives because I work in Information Security during the day and IT at night, so I routinely clone hard disks or move files from broken machines, create bootable ISOs, bring app install files to the customer because they have slow Internet. Then a decent and large drive for long term tier 2 Time Machine backups and a 256 GB micro-SD card with 100 MB/s write and read speed for Time Machine as a tier 0 backup. I don't think I've ever had more than 10 GB of data that I absolutely needed 100% of the time. The rest of it can go to iCloud, OneDrive, and Box depending on what hat I'm wearing. It's rarely pulled down to my devices anyways. The frequently used stuff stays on-prem then backed up to the cloud for redundancy. With my data in the cloud, every device I touch has access to my files if I wish, including devices I don't own but am using. That is priceless to me.

The only way I'd really need a large SSD is if I had a terrible or limited Internet connection but that's not an issue for me. Instead I have terrible and limited patience so the more processing power, the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Santabean2000
I'd say stick with the i5, and If you're just using PS and LR, you 16GB is more then enough, I'd not opt for 32 as you'll probably never use that much ram. I'm running LR on a 8GB system and its fine, so a 16GB will give you enough future proofing imo
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnyf
goo
Thanks for the feedback. Will settle for i5, 16 ram and 512 SSD
good choice
[doublepost=1532945279][/doublepost]
The single threaded benchmark scores are actually pretty significant imo. 4600 vs 53-5400. I feel the multi threads have a decent difference as well. Real world? No idea lol
It is not that bad in geekbench: single,multi ->i5: 4490,16434 i7: 5127,17490
 
goo

good choice
[doublepost=1532945279][/doublepost]
It is not that bad in geekbench: single,multi ->i5: 4490,16434 i7: 5127,17490
That's actually on the low side. There's another thread talking about performance for the 13 only. Myself and another guy consistently get 53-5400 and 18200-18300. I have never gotten close to 17.5 for multi. So now we are talking close to 2k difference in multi between the i5 and i7. Is that real world? I don't know. But that's significant as far as scores go.
 
That's actually on the low side. There's another thread talking about performance for the 13 only. Myself and another guy consistently get 53-5400 and 18200-18300. I have never gotten close to 17.5 for multi. So now we are talking close to 2k difference in multi between the i5 and i7. Is that real world? I don't know. But that's significant as far as scores go.
Yea, but both are hyperthreaded, so it is not night and day. 4500 in single is pretty fast actually and over 15k in multi is insane, these CPUs are crazy! The i5 is already faster than 7gen i7s (it is equivalent to the 7920HQ)!
I would really like a 13" Macbook without the touchbar equipped with this CPU, probably will get the XPS13 meanwhile.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: upandown
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.