I would suggest only using 64 GB and don't mix with the Apple ram. According to several other people who have tried mixing ram, the speeds gets lowered and causes issues. So you're better off with just running OWC instead of mixing.
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.
Decision time i7 vs i9 for new 2020 iMac?
- Thread starter BasilFawlty
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would suggest only using 64 GB and don't mix with the Apple ram. According to several other people who have tried mixing ram, the speeds gets lowered and causes issues. So you're better off with just running OWC instead of mixing.
I wonder if theres some app I could use to test this? I have mixed memory in my current 2011 iMac and have had not practical issues. But it would be interesting to test with and without the Apple memory.
You should be able to see it in system info after installing. In the end there shouldn't really be a difference between 64GB and 72GB, unless you really push the system hard.
I just got off the chat with OWC and they assured my there should be no issues with mixing their RAM with Apple RAM.
72GB is probably more than I'll ever need (where have I heard that before?)
I hope this works out for you. Do let us know how this turns out. There are a couple of threads now that are fairly full with users experiencing issues mixing Apple's stock RAM and 3rd party RAM in these 2020 iMacs. We need more data points though.
If I do have any issues it will be easy enough to pull those two Apple boards.
Thats basically around a $950 with swing in price(with tax) if you go with both of those options. Considering you may not get any benefits from them thats a hard no from me unless you have specific reason for them such as lighting for the nano glass.
here is the 2020 i7 compared to the i9 and the 2017 iMac Pro on bare feats
2020 iMac 5K 8-core versus 2017 iMac Pro 8-core
real world speed test results for performance minded Macintosh users
barefeats.com
Ah just also keep in mind with that, the 8 core has the lowest end gpu and the 10 core has the top end BTO gpu. Makes for a big difference in things like noise reduction and gaming which are more GPU intensive tasks.
That 2017 i9 is an 8-core. I want to see a comparison between todays's 8-core i7 and today's 10-core i9.
its not a perfect comparison because the i7 has the 5500XT Gpu and the i9 has the 5700XT Gpu but it does represent the raw CPU strengths.
That is going to depend on what you use those 10 cores for. No one is going to buy a 10 core iMac to just run Cinebench and not all multitasking work loads put the CPU under constant load.
That said, the initial reviews do show that the extra cores stay active under load so if you have a multitasking heavy work load I would get the 10 core. I am not sure how much use that Photoshop, Lightroom or Final Cut X would make of the extra two cores. YouTube is full of reviews of the Mac running video editing software though.
But then, given your already specced out setting, spending additional 400 may be justifiable as you would then have a bragging right or atleast some kind of satisfaction knowing you’ve got the killer machine
A bit like buying the V8 version of a car instead of the 6. Not going to make much difference to performance but its a V8.
I'm debating the i7 and i9 for audio work, specifically using Ableton Live. Still undecided but now leaning toward the i9 as it's a more advanced chip and those two extra cores will distribute the processing more.
Had my i9 a few days now have been using it to run multiple VMs I appreciate the extra cores and have had no issues with thermals or throttling but i rarely need to maintain 100% load on 10 cores outside benchmarks.
Most benchmarks I've seen so far indicate around a 10% difference in performance under max load. Tbh the i9 is not worth it unless you run things under max load all the time, in which case the iMac probably isn't the ideal computer anyway.
I don't believe that to be the case, but am willing to be corrected. From what I've gathered, when using software that utilises multithreading such as Ableton or Logic more cores are better. They don't have to be running at max load to be beneficial. For instance, if I have a session with 150 tracks, it will distribute the processing more efficiently reducing the chance of a single core bottlenecking. The i9 has two additional cores and 4 threads, I can't see how that wouldn't benefit my workflow.
Like I said, I'm eager to be proved wrong as would save me some money, but am yet to be.
Last edited:
I'm using an i7 for music production and i'm not getting even close to juicing all the 8 cores or feeling any reduction in performance. To me, for music production probably RAM is much more important than cores if you're going to use many plugin instances.
If you think an i7 won't be enough for a production probably you're in the market for another kind of gear (run plugins on DSP ready hardware etc...). Maybe what you save could go into some of that external hardware...
Most studios i've been to are using a few years old computers not so loaded...
If you think an i7 won't be enough for a production probably you're in the market for another kind of gear (run plugins on DSP ready hardware etc...). Maybe what you save could go into some of that external hardware...
Most studios i've been to are using a few years old computers not so loaded...
It all depends on workflow and requirements, I don't use plugins with a DSP hardware component so need that additional processing power. For music production cores are far more important than RAM unless you're doing heavy orchestral work with multi sampled libraries.
Look at the benchmarks. The i7 in Geekbench multicore is around 9000 and the i9 is around 10000. Thats a bit more than 10% difference in raw benchmark performance.
Performance is not a linear thing - So 25% more cores doesn't necessarily give 25% more performance. It depends on the software, the load characteristics etc. On top of that comes the fact that even software that can use multicore is often not optimised for using 8+ cores, so at some point you're going to be hit by diminishing returns.
Then you have to factor in that the i7 has a higher base frequency and that multiple reviews have shown that the i7 maintains it's boost frequency at a higher rate than the i9.
A 100+ track Logic or Ableton session will definitely require some ressources, but that have been possible on even 4 core i7 processors. We don't all of the sudden need to jump to a 10 core beast to handle that load.
If you want to get it, then definitely do so - But don't do it because you try to convince yourself that you need it do your work. Both the i7 and the i9 are BEASTS of a computer.
Yeah I'm not considering the i9 because I 'need it to do my work'. I'm just trying to find the best processor for my workflow which is highly processor reliant, and the i9 has more of that - I realise both would do a great job. I want to see more benchmarks before I decide and I'm not sure how applicable Geekbench is for audio.
Do you have a citation for Live not utilising more than 8 cores? Logic certainly does.
Agreed that the i7 would likely be the better choice, not only because of the better single core performance, but also the number of programs that can utilize more than 8 cores effectively are few and far between. Obviously if you have a key program you use that you KNOW will effectively utilize all 10 cores, then that's a different story.
On the other hand, I would AVOID the nano texture glass at all costs. Those surfaces are reportedly fairly delicate and if difficult to clean. Attempt to clean it and do something incorrect, and you have made a very expensive mistake.
Last edited:
The purpose of Geekbench and similar benchmarking tools is to give you an (as much as possible) objective measurement of the raw CPU performance. So if the benchmark is saying a 10% difference, you will not see 20% difference or more in an application(if the CPU is the only difference).
I didn't say that Ableton can't handle above 8 cores. I'm saying that most software is not optimized for 8+ cores - Meaning you don't get much increased performance by adding additional cores. Ableton might very well be optimized for it, I simply don't know.