27C room temp is pretty hot.
And there is bound to be some inconsistency considering these are not fixed variables. Music isn't exactly a stable and easy to measure load.
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.
i7-7700K vs. i5-7600K for Logic Pro X
- Thread starter Smoothie
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And there is bound to be some inconsistency considering these are not fixed variables. Music isn't exactly a stable and easy to measure load.
it was
The i7 was more like 30% and Temps were in the low 70s (degC)[doublepost=1498798564][/doublepost]
Yeah - I had to look it up - Probably more like 23degC
The Music I actually set to loop and five it 5 or 10 minutes to stabilize...
[doublepost=1498798670][/doublepost]
it was
[doublepost=1498798564][/doublepost]
Yeah - I had to look it up - Probably more like 23degC
The Music I actually set to loop and five it 5 or 10 minutes to stabilize...
PS - I LOVE this 5K screen. I looked for a new monitor for my Mac Pro to equal it and it would be at least 1/2 the price of the new iMac...
[doublepost=1498799926][/doublepost]Last update for tonight... In this last series of tests I have the iMac hooked up with two thunderbolt 3 to thunderbolt 2 adapters. It turns out these use quite a bit of power! One of them is powering an optical run that goes between my two rooms. The other one just goes to a thunderbolt Solid-state drive dock. As soon as I powered down the optical run Power dropped quite a bit and temperature went down 6°C. In the initial testing I did I just had the iMac powering its internal speaker. With just the TB SSD Dock connected I am idling closer to 44 degC. In the final configuration of this system I will have jst one optical TB2 run and a single USB3 either 1 or 2TB backup and overflow drive. Interesting...
Last edited:
The screen is definitely my favorite part of it. So much room to work and it looks great. Honestly I like using a the 27" 5k screen more than 2 24" 1080p screensit was
[doublepost=1498798564][/doublepost]
Yeah - I had to look it up - Probably more like 23degC
The Music I actually set to loop and five it 5 or 10 minutes to stabilize...
[doublepost=1498798670][/doublepost]
PS - I LOVE this 5K screen. I looked for a new monitor for my Mac Pro to equal it and it would be at least 1/2 the price of the new iMac...
[doublepost=1498799926][/doublepost]Last update for tonight... In this last series of tests I have the iMac hooked up with two thunderbolt 3 to thunderbolt 2 adapters. It turns out these use quite a bit of power! One of them is powering an optical run that goes between my two rooms. The other one just goes to a thunderbolt Solid-state drive dock. As soon as I powered down the optical run Power dropped quite a bit and temperature went down 6°C. In the initial testing I did I just had the iMac powering its internal speaker. With just the TB SSD Dock connected I am idling closer to 44 degC. In the final configuration of this system I will have jst one optical TB2 run and a single USB3 either 1 or 2TB backup and overflow drive. Interesting...
For those interested, there is a massive thread at Gearslutz on logic benchmark test results...
iMac 2017 4.2GHz i7 149 tracks
iMac 2017 3.8GHz i5 73 tracks.
https://www.gearspace.com/board/apple-logic-pro/371545-logic-pro-multicore-benchmarktest-101.html
Some other results for comparison.
Mac Pro 2013 (Xeon 6-Core 3,5 Ghz)
169 tracks
MacBook Pro 15” Touch Bar 2016 (i7 4-Core 2,6 GHz)
100 tracks
MacBook Pro 15” Touch Bar 2017 (i7 4-Core 2,8 GHz)
100 tracks
iMac 27” 2017 (i5 2-Core 3,8 GHz)
73 tracks
MacBook Pro 13” Touch Bar 2017 (i5 2-Core 3,1 GHz)
53 tracks
MacBook Pro 13” Function Keys 2017 (i5 2-Core 2,3 GHz)
50 tracks
MacBook 2017 (m3 2-Core 1,2 GHz)
39 tracks
iMac 2017 4.2GHz i7 149 tracks
iMac 2017 3.8GHz i5 73 tracks.
https://www.gearspace.com/board/apple-logic-pro/371545-logic-pro-multicore-benchmarktest-101.html
Some other results for comparison.
Mac Pro 2013 (Xeon 6-Core 3,5 Ghz)
169 tracks
MacBook Pro 15” Touch Bar 2016 (i7 4-Core 2,6 GHz)
100 tracks
MacBook Pro 15” Touch Bar 2017 (i7 4-Core 2,8 GHz)
100 tracks
iMac 27” 2017 (i5 2-Core 3,8 GHz)
73 tracks
MacBook Pro 13” Touch Bar 2017 (i5 2-Core 3,1 GHz)
53 tracks
MacBook Pro 13” Function Keys 2017 (i5 2-Core 2,3 GHz)
50 tracks
MacBook 2017 (m3 2-Core 1,2 GHz)
39 tracks
Wow, literally twice as many tracks going from the 7600K to the 7700K. Are they testing this in a consistent manner with the same files? Sorry, I didn't get a chance to read through the thread.
I don't know whether it's a typo, but the i5 in the 2017 iMac is described as a "2-core." Is that the 21-inch iMac?
Last edited:
A Classic test (since 2009) that clearly shows the difference between HT and not on CPUs. It is completely skewed toward synths and things that multiprocess well. The i7 literally can do 2X what the i5 can do. Even in my testing this is pretty close to right.
[doublepost=1498841895][/doublepost]
My 2GHz i5 dual core 2016 MBP did 44 on this test
-------
FWIW:
i7 140 tracks - 95defC 1600 RPM 100% Logic CPU
i7 110 tracks - 90degC 1200 RPM 90% Logic CPU
i7 70 Tracks - 80degC 1200RPM --- Turbo OFF 72degC 1200 RPM
i5 3.4 70 Tracks - 60degC 1200 RPM 199% Logic CPU
[doublepost=1498841895][/doublepost]
-------
My 2GHz i5 dual core 2016 MBP did 44 on this test
-------
FWIW:
i7 140 tracks - 95defC 1600 RPM 100% Logic CPU
i7 110 tracks - 90degC 1200 RPM 90% Logic CPU
i7 70 Tracks - 80degC 1200RPM --- Turbo OFF 72degC 1200 RPM
i5 3.4 70 Tracks - 60degC 1200 RPM 199% Logic CPU
Attachments
Last edited:
won't be doing music but still glad i went i7 4.2 route.
now just have to wait one more week for it to arrive.
now just have to wait one more week for it to arrive.
A Classic test (since 2009) that clearly shows the difference between HT and not on CPUs. It is completely skewed toward synths and things that multiprocess well. The i7 literally can do 2X what the i5 can do. Even in my testing this is pretty close to right.
[doublepost=1498841895][/doublepost]
-------
My 2GHz i5 dual core 2016 MBP did 44 on this test
At this point I think if a given person is into music production and soft synth based composition, the i7 is the best choice hands down.
I think i've been convinced to return the i5 and get the i7 now as well. I can deal with fan noise with those numbers.
I don't think it's as simple as that. Sure, a CPU of the same generation with more logical cores and a higher clock speed will be able to handle more tracks and plugins than one with less. However, as with most things in life, there's a trade-off. The faster chip will generate a lot more heat. The i7 is a very hot chip under load, and the iMac's cooling system will work overtime to try to keep the chip from exceeding its maximum rated temp. If necessary, the chip will lower its clock speed to reduce the temp to avoid self-destruction.
I'm not as concerned about fan noise as the effect of all that extra heat on the chip and the surrounding components over the long term. Excessive heat can cause unwanted effects that can shorten the life of electronic components. Electromigration is just one of those effects. Whether any negative effects of all that heat will be a problem for you depends to some extent on how much you load the CPU and how long you intend to keep the iMac. I'm just not comfortable with a CPU hitting 90 deg. C or more for any appreciable period of time.
If the iMac had a better cooling system for the i7, I'd buy that configuration. However, I don't envision any time where I'd load up Logic with so many tracks and plugins where the i5-7600K would falter. So in my case, the extra heat generated by the i7 isn't warranted by my usage. If your usage of Logic requires more, then your best option would seem to be the i7.
The iMac Pro will have two fans and a larger heatsink on the CPU. I wish Apple had offered that with the current iMac.
You're right about heat. The main reason why this happens is that more electricity is used to power both the extra clock speed & a significant more to enable hyperthreading. While not 4 actual cores, they are essentially virtual cores & call for the extra power for that side of the processor. More electricity=more heat. The TDP may remain the same, but CPUs don't use up the the TDP most of the time unless they are operating at their full capacity, & with something like an i5, they may never hit the TDP despite being designed for that.
To bring another thought into perspective, I use every bit of my i7 when I run projects. When I don't, I turn the hyper threading off to save on heat & money. Also, some programs run their software efficiently enough that they don't leave room for hyper threading to do anything. I'll shut it off in that scenario as well & take maybe a 5% performance hit.
Hyperthreading is merely a virtual processor designed to use what the repsective main core does not use. If a process only uses 50% of the core, the hyper threaded core gets the remaining 50%. If the process uses 99%, the hyperthreaded core gets 1% making it much, much slower while still using a significant amount of power.
That makes no sense. How can an i7 get twice the track count of an i5 then?
At 73 tracks the i5 would be essentially maxing out all cores. An i7 the same clock speed with HT turned off would be doing the same. Turning on HT then doubles the track count.
Is seriously doubt the maximum a core would load itself up is 50%
I have just made a silly sounding Logic file to test the difference between the i5 and i7 machines
Its 5 VI tracks (128 buffer 96kHz) and then duplicate...
With 42 of these going the i5 is 50% CPU (90% on the Logic CPU monitor) and 56degC nice and steady
But any more and Logic will throw an overload error and stop
With 100 of these going the i7 is also around 50% load (90% on the Logic CPU monitor) and plays no issues. More than this gets stops. Temps hover around 95degC and fan settled in around 1600 (erratic). I set the fan to 1800 via istat but temps were still peaking in the 90s.
If I was an orchestral guy I would go MacPro and as many real cores as I could. For my uses - 40+ VI tracks would be a huge number. I am more a real instrument guy though. It is fascinating to see where the i7 really shows its stuff - but the temps are nowhere near controlled compared to the i5. I love the headroom of the i7 but I may make the tradeoff and have to freeze more if I get at all close to the limits... More work to do...
If you promise not to turn the sound on past a whisper I will share this file. Silly crap done with computer keyboard entry... laugh out loud but no critiques please
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bbp5ahfr6u6tsmu/LogicTest2VI.logicx.zip?dl=0
My 2011 15" (2GHz i7, 512GB SSD and 8GB RAM) played it with no bother at all, although the Logic CPU meter was very close to full across all cores (except one, oddly, which was around 1/4). Awesome little test.
I feel I can throw in here, I work a lot with multiple DAWs (Logic, Studio One, Reason and Pro Tools) and my day-job is as stated in my sig.
I feel the i7 is absolutely worth it if you can afford it (in the UK it's ~£200 dearer, so maybe around 10% on top of the price of most CTO iMacs) simply because of longevity. The i5 is a great processor and it's keeping pace with the i7 today, here and now, but years down the line the differences will absolutely be clearer. Newer OSes will take more resources for background activities and plug-ins/software instruments will only get more advanced. Yes, they will hopefully get even better optimisation as well but they will demand ever increasing amounts of power. Particularly the top-end stuff that doesn't have to run on dedicated DSP hardware.
Regarding the noise and heat, the heat is more of an issue. Long-term, it will increase wear on the system and that's an unavoidable fact. However, I'd like to think Apple can make a firmware adjustment to mitigate it somewhat. In terms of noise, headphone mixes are an option (especially today given how music is consumed by the public) but really no decent monitoring system is going to be thrown off by fan noise unless it gets extreme. In which case, maybe it's time for a break anyway - ear fatigue will hold your mixes back more than a noisy fan.
I'm not saying the fan noise isn't annoying where it's present, but that's the cost of having desktop components in an AiO chassis (we can't comment on the iMac Pro's performance in this regard as it's not out yet, and it benefits from a far more advanced cooling system from what I've seen so far). I'd absolutely get the i7, unless you're literally just dabbling in audio production or intend to upgrade the Mac in around three years. Personally, I keep mine around 5-6 years. This upgraded 2011 MBP is handling everything more than fine, but I'd kill for a Retina display!
Just my opinion based on my experiences and how I know I can work.
I feel the i7 is absolutely worth it if you can afford it (in the UK it's ~£200 dearer, so maybe around 10% on top of the price of most CTO iMacs) simply because of longevity. The i5 is a great processor and it's keeping pace with the i7 today, here and now, but years down the line the differences will absolutely be clearer. Newer OSes will take more resources for background activities and plug-ins/software instruments will only get more advanced. Yes, they will hopefully get even better optimisation as well but they will demand ever increasing amounts of power. Particularly the top-end stuff that doesn't have to run on dedicated DSP hardware.
Regarding the noise and heat, the heat is more of an issue. Long-term, it will increase wear on the system and that's an unavoidable fact. However, I'd like to think Apple can make a firmware adjustment to mitigate it somewhat. In terms of noise, headphone mixes are an option (especially today given how music is consumed by the public) but really no decent monitoring system is going to be thrown off by fan noise unless it gets extreme. In which case, maybe it's time for a break anyway - ear fatigue will hold your mixes back more than a noisy fan.
I'm not saying the fan noise isn't annoying where it's present, but that's the cost of having desktop components in an AiO chassis (we can't comment on the iMac Pro's performance in this regard as it's not out yet, and it benefits from a far more advanced cooling system from what I've seen so far). I'd absolutely get the i7, unless you're literally just dabbling in audio production or intend to upgrade the Mac in around three years. Personally, I keep mine around 5-6 years. This upgraded 2011 MBP is handling everything more than fine, but I'd kill for a Retina display!
Just my opinion based on my experiences and how I know I can work.
I understand where you're coming from, but it should be noted that the i5-7600K iMac is 40% faster in multithreaded applications than the top-of-the-line 2011 i7 MacBook Pro.
Exactly as you'd hope after six years of progress. The question that also illustrates my point is, would an i5 2011 model perform as well today? All comes down to how long you intend to keep the Mac for.
this can't be true, are you comparing dual core vs quad core ? then yes
which cpu do u mean exactly in the "top of the line i7 2011" ?
You can say that about any computer ever manufactured. Technology improves with time. But you acknowledge that you're doing pro audio on a six-year-old laptop. Not bad.
Although you agree heat is the issue when putting a 7700K into an iMac case and that will increase wear on the system, you hope that Apple will come up with a firmware update to ameliorate that. Other than adjusting the fan profile to exhaust more hot air, I don't know what can be done to reduce the heat generated by the CPU itself. That's just physics. There's just not a lot of airflow in an iMac case. Apple knows it has to address that in the upcoming iMac Pro. Also, I'd never buy hardware with the hope that a future firmware update will address an existing issue.
I agree that the 7700K will be able to handle more processing in Logic, but that comes at a cost. If your work requires lots of tracks, plugins, etc., then you may need the 7700K and heat be damned. But if you don't need to work with all that, the 7600K will be fine and at lower wear on the system.
Yes I agree but you said an old 2011 laptop was already sufficient for what you need, so the 7600K already gives you a lot more headroom.
I'm not saying don't buy the i7. I'm just saying that the 7600K isn't a bad machine and shouldn't be ruled out just for future proofing. If people don't like dealing with fan noise, there's nothing wrong with getting a "lesser" machine. That person may actually be happier keeping the machine 4 years comparatively noise-free and upgrading then instead of upgrading after 6 years with the fan on all the time. That extra 40% headroom may allow them to keep it those 4 years. Or it may not. ie. It's not a slam dunk black-and-white choice, esp. judging by propower's posts here and in the noise thread.
Geekbench score: 3522 / 11705 - 15" MacBook Pro quad Core i7-2860QM 2.5 GHz Late 2011
Geekbench score: 5484 / 16463 - 27" iMac quad Core i5-7600K 3.8 GHz mid-2017
Delta: +56% / +40.6%
BTW, how come you were surprised? Did you think the 2011 laptop i7 would be faster than it is? Or did you think the 2017 iMac i5 would be faster than it is?
Last edited:
An interesting thing from my test above is that when you take the 70 track load from the i5 test which maxes that one out and put it on the i7 with turbo off the i7 runs at about 60% load on the Logic CPU meter and temperature is 12° higher than the i5. 72degC instead of 60degC. Worth noting that something that would max the i5 out runs cool enough to have no risk of fan ramping on the i7. One would have around 20degC of thermal headroom before fan ramp and a lot of CPU bandwidth left to use. Note - the Logic meter runs out of room long before the actual CPU meter in Activity Monitor does so a 100% Audio load does not utilize the CPU like a synthetic benchmark.
Thanks to OSX Dude - your comment about fully loading a 5-6 year old i7 with a file that fully loads a current i5 is a great example of CPU progress! But that is also just a synthetic test with things designed by Logic - for Logic. WRT computer lifespan - for me - 3 years is a long time (my 2013 MP is about there). Its not a need - just the way I am. The long term heat thing is also something I strongly dislike with the i7 cooling design and I wish was different. If I did stick with an iMac i7 - I am thinking 2.5 yrs w/ Apple Care is the right time to sell. Maximize $$ back and just leave any long term heat issues for the next guy.
In video - less resource makes things slower. In audio it limits what can run. But there are always workarounds - in Audio you can freeze tracks (temporary renders) which release any processing resources and turn the track into a simple audio file. Makes even huge projects realistic for an i5. BUT - if I were doing orchestration or used lots (100+) VI tracks - I would insist on more cores - more than i7 for sure. A tough place for todays Mac buyer but the 2013 MacPro is not a bad choice there. VI farms running windows with VE Pro is a common solution I see - as is the 2013 MP 8 and 12 core. Can be had on the used market for pretty good prices.
Now I am just starting to use VIs again (have BFD3 and Komplete 11 loaded) and in the past some plugins or VIs would take over a whole core. Are there still plugins that do that? If only a few things were like that it could easily justify the i7 based on number of cores - not Geekbench or speed or even heat.
------------
PS - for any that know - is the Current i7 iMac significantly different heat and fan ramp wise than the 2015 4GHz i7?
-----------
PSPS - Some of my heat issues are actually from having a second monitor. This puts around 20 extra Watts on the GPU (which puts even more on the Power supply) and raises the overall heat level in the machine. Increase is somewhere in the 5 to 10degC range.
Thanks to OSX Dude - your comment about fully loading a 5-6 year old i7 with a file that fully loads a current i5 is a great example of CPU progress! But that is also just a synthetic test with things designed by Logic - for Logic. WRT computer lifespan - for me - 3 years is a long time (my 2013 MP is about there). Its not a need - just the way I am. The long term heat thing is also something I strongly dislike with the i7 cooling design and I wish was different. If I did stick with an iMac i7 - I am thinking 2.5 yrs w/ Apple Care is the right time to sell. Maximize $$ back and just leave any long term heat issues for the next guy.
In video - less resource makes things slower. In audio it limits what can run. But there are always workarounds - in Audio you can freeze tracks (temporary renders) which release any processing resources and turn the track into a simple audio file. Makes even huge projects realistic for an i5. BUT - if I were doing orchestration or used lots (100+) VI tracks - I would insist on more cores - more than i7 for sure. A tough place for todays Mac buyer but the 2013 MacPro is not a bad choice there. VI farms running windows with VE Pro is a common solution I see - as is the 2013 MP 8 and 12 core. Can be had on the used market for pretty good prices.
Now I am just starting to use VIs again (have BFD3 and Komplete 11 loaded) and in the past some plugins or VIs would take over a whole core. Are there still plugins that do that? If only a few things were like that it could easily justify the i7 based on number of cores - not Geekbench or speed or even heat.
------------
PS - for any that know - is the Current i7 iMac significantly different heat and fan ramp wise than the 2015 4GHz i7?
-----------
PSPS - Some of my heat issues are actually from having a second monitor. This puts around 20 extra Watts on the GPU (which puts even more on the Power supply) and raises the overall heat level in the machine. Increase is somewhere in the 5 to 10degC range.
Last edited:
Except he's not really saying that if you dissect out his post. Or if he is trying to say that, then it is not accurate in this context.
It's likely his 2011 laptop i7 is not fully loaded. And even if it were, the desktop i5 in 2017 still has 40% more performance available to it than that old laptop i7.
Started doing a little work with Kontakt (a popular Virtual Instrument Collection) and I think I finally have an answer for myself. Virtual instruments can be very CPU intensive. With only five active I was able to utilize 55% of the i5 CPU (all 96kHz 128 buffer today). The i7 was more like 20%. This was even more true during the recording process where resources are taxed even a little higher. Surprisingly for the same load the temperature difference between the i7 and the i5 is very minimal. It's a gig day for me so no more this today but I will leave these pictures for people to take a look at....
