i9 sucks?

[mavericks7913]

"Uh. It’s called the iMac Pro. The did improve the cooling, but it will take some time for the consumer iMac to get it.
"
Hahaha. I guess you know nothing about computer technology. Even iMac Pro has a limitation with a cooling system. What are you expecting? Do you even own iMac Pro?

"It is not Apple fault. With the current cooling system, does the iMac i9 perform within Intels spec? Yes, so the cooling is fine. In fact, Max videos reported its much cooler and runs better than previous generations."

It IS Apple's fault by not having a PROPER cooling system. WTH are you saying?

This is a normal air cooling for PC

This is iMac's cooling system lol. A small cooling fan to cool both CPU and GPU! lolol. Who's the fault is it then? It is a fact that Apple didnt even put a proper cooling system. Also, Apple is well known for having issues with the cooling system for a long time. Apple 3, PowerMac G4 Cube, Mac Pro 2013, and more.


When you are saying "within Intel's spec", the maximum clock speed is 5ghz or 4.7ghz depends on how many cores you are using. Do iMac can use and maintain the maximum clock speed? NO. iMac's i9 is not even close to Intel's spec and it's a fact.

Do you even know that i9-9900K has four limitations to prevent overheating issues? Running cooler doesnt mean it is better and runs faster. iMac's i9-9900K actually undervolt the CPU to lower the temperature. And yet the temperature is still high and the clock speed is still lower than PC with i9-9900K.

 

[priitv8]

View attachment 843721

If you want a monster like this, why look towards iMac at all?
PS Looks like new Mac Pro will bring something like this under your table quite soon.

 

[mavericks7913]

If you want a monster like this, why look towards iMac at all?
PS Looks like new Mac Pro will bring something like this under your table quite soon.

It's not a monster but a normal cooler lol. Simply Apple never improved iMac's cooler since 2012.

Even Mac Pro 2019 does not have a proper cooling system. We will see how it performs but I already doubt it.

 

[Zdigital2015]

As crazzyeddie showed, i9-9900K's all core turbo speed is 4.7ghz. And recently, Intel announced i9-9900KS with all core turbo at 5ghz.
[doublepost=1560700717][/doublepost]

It certianly does because Intel's monopoly made this kind of result as they are not improving their processing which is 14nm since 2015 while AMD has 7nm.

Then quit wasting time stirring **** up here and go file a complaint with the FCC, the SEC, the Justice Department and the CPB over Intel's monopolistic business practices and let us know how far you get with them.

If the CPU was supposed to sustain 4.7GHz or 5.0GHz all day long, they would have that as the processor base frequency in the Intel ARK, but they don't, because it's called Max Turbo Frequency. Intel also demoed the i9-9900KS with a closed loop liquid cooler, which Apple has done very few times - in the G5/Mac Pro tower. Bottom line, your dog won't hunt.
Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14402/intel-announces-5-ghz-all-core-turbo-cpu

Anandtech has a better and longer write up about TDP, Turbo Boost and Max Turbo
Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo

From Intel's website:

Processor Base Frequency
Processor Base Frequency describes the rate at which the processor's transistors open and close. The processor base frequency is the operating point where TDP is defined. Frequency is measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.

Max Turbo Frequency
Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating using Intel® Turbo Boost Technology and, if present, Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost. Frequency is measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.

Intel® Turbo Boost Technology
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology dynamically increases the processor's frequency as needed by taking advantage of thermal and power headroom to give you a burst of speed when you need it, and increased energy efficiency when you don’t.

You don't run the turbocharger bolted to your car's engine with the max boost all the time because we all know what happen if you try that ...KABOOM! If you or anyone else expects the 9900K to run all cores at 4.7GHz 24/7/365 then you better be getting something better than that beQuiet! cooler you have in your other post, because numerous builders have commented that Intel's TDP means absolutely zero with most of their modern, over-clockable CPUs and your likely to need water or liquid-cooling, a beefier PSU and plenty of fans to move the air out, even in a modern ATX tower.

You also need to win the silicon lottery because not every Core i9-9900K CPU that leaves Intel's factories is going to be stellar at overclocking, or even sustaining the Max Turbo Frequency. You're deluding yourself if you think every CPU Intel ships can sustain those frequencies at the same rate. That's why Intel states the Processor Base Frequency. They guarantee the base frequency that every CPU that they ship will operate at that frequency, nothing more.

Apple has a power budget for the iMac that it has to keep all of the system components within to make sure the PSU doesn't run out of juice and damage the system. Apple designs well balanced systems, they don't design systems for overclocking or to operate at the margins. Neither does Dell, HP Lenovo, etc for their mainstream towers. They have separate gaming brands for pushing those performance boundaries and even those have limits when compared to specialty PC builders or DIY PCs.

The 2019 iMac operates just fine. If you are that concerned, then you should wait until the next iMac is released or build your own PC.
[doublepost=1560885576][/doublepost]

iMac compromised the performance by under volting the CPU. With a proper desktop, i9-9900K shouldnt suffers its performance like that.
[doublepost=1560840937][/doublepost]

It's not too high. It's totally normal. And yet because of stupid Apple's design, most Macs are throttling. With a normal PC, this can be fixed by adding a nice and big cooler. Why do we have to use a small and thin computer?

LOL not this topic again. I said it's both Intel and Apple's fault. Apple is well known for having a poor cooling performance for A LONG TIME. Did they ever improve the cooling system for iMac? No. Since Apple is not able provide better cooling options, it's Apple's fault too.

Apple is locking the TDP at 95w just like other PC OEMs do to preserve the rest of the system components and the power supply. This is not throttling....this is simply not letting the 9900K consume as much power as it wants, whenever it wants, for as long as it wants, pure and simple.

Regardless, you're beating a dead horse...go build yourself a Windows PC or a Hackintosh and you can tweak it to your heart's delight...or until it blows up in your face.

 

[mavericks7913]

Then quit wasting time stirring **** up here and go file a complaint with the FCC, the SEC, the Justice Department and the CPB over Intel's monopolistic business practices and let us know how far you get with them.

If the CPU was supposed to sustain 4.7GHz or 5.0GHz all day long, they would have that as the processor base frequency in the Intel ARK, but they don't, because it's called Max Turbo Frequency. Intel also demoed the i9-9900KS with a closed loop liquid cooler, which Apple has done very few times - in the G5/Mac Pro tower. Bottom line, your dog won't hunt.
Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/14402/intel-announces-5-ghz-all-core-turbo-cpu

Anandtech has a better and longer write up about TDP, Turbo Boost and Max Turbo
Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo

From Intel's website:

Processor Base Frequency
Processor Base Frequency describes the rate at which the processor's transistors open and close. The processor base frequency is the operating point where TDP is defined. Frequency is measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.

Max Turbo Frequency
Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating using Intel® Turbo Boost Technology and, if present, Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost. Frequency is measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.

Intel® Turbo Boost Technology
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology dynamically increases the processor's frequency as needed by taking advantage of thermal and power headroom to give you a burst of speed when you need it, and increased energy efficiency when you don’t.

You don't run the turbocharger bolted to your car's engine with the max boost all the time because we all know what happen if you try that ...KABOOM! If you or anyone else expects the 9900K to run all cores at 4.7GHz 24/7/365 then you better be getting something better than that beQuiet! cooler you have in your other post, because numerous builders have commented that Intel's TDP means absolutely zero with most of their modern, over-clockable CPUs and your likely to need water or liquid-cooling, a beefier PSU and plenty of fans to move the air out, even in a modern ATX tower.

You also need to win the silicon lottery because not every Core i9-9900K CPU that leaves Intel's factories is going to be stellar at overclocking, or even sustaining the Max Turbo Frequency. You're deluding yourself if you think every CPU Intel ships can sustain those frequencies at the same rate. That's why Intel states the Processor Base Frequency. They guarantee the base frequency that every CPU that they ship will operate at that frequency, nothing more.

Apple has a power budget for the iMac that it has to keep all of the system components within to make sure the PSU doesn't run out of juice and damage the system. Apple designs well balanced systems, they don't design systems for overclocking or to operate at the margins. Neither does Dell, HP Lenovo, etc for their mainstream towers. They have separate gaming brands for pushing those performance boundaries and even those have limits when compared to specialty PC builders or DIY PCs.

The 2019 iMac operates just fine. If you are that concerned, then you should wait until the next iMac is released or build your own PC.
[doublepost=1560885576][/doublepost]

Apple is locking the TDP at 95w just like other PC OEMs do to preserve the rest of the system components and the power supply. This is not throttling....this is simply not letting the 9900K consume as much power as it wants, whenever it wants, for as long as it wants, pure and simple.

Regardless, you're beating a dead horse...go build yourself a Windows PC or a Hackintosh and you can tweak it to your heart's delight...or until it blows up in your face.

The point is, the current Mac cooling system is not able to cool down Intel's CPU and yet people blaming only Intel! How irony it is. It's not the first time and Apple is focusing on the design and quitness instead of performance. Get it?

 

[Zdigital2015]

The point is, the current Mac cooling system is not able to cool down Intel's CPU and yet people blaming only Intel! How irony it is. It's not the first time and Apple is focusing on the design and quitness instead of performance. Get it?

That Apple focuses on design and quietness over absolute performance of the computers that it ships is not news or noteworthy in the least, so yeah, I get it.

When Apple released the 2012 iMac, the top CPU Apple used (Core i7-3770) had a 3.4GHz base and max turbo of 3.9GHz with a 77w TDP. Seven years on, Intel routinely blows past their advertised TDPs and the Core i9-9900K has a 3.6GHz base clock with a max turbo of 4.7Ghz, which is more than a 200% higher gap than the i7-3770. Again, Intel is releasing CPUs into the enthusiast market that really need liquid cooling (8086K, 9900K, 9900KS, W-3175X). Apple decided to offer the 9900K as that was the CPU that was available at the time of release, while the Core i9-9900 was released a month after the 2019 iMac went on sale. The CPU seems to do quite well, performance-wise, with the 95w TDP locked inside the iMac. Much better than the Core i7-7700K did...it seems.

Yes, I blame Intel...and Apple is not the only company having issues with this. Just ask Dell and any other PC OEMs why they almost universally only offered the Core i7-8750H last year in their high end laptops as opposed to the Core i7-8850H or the Core i9-8950HK? Because they were too damn hot, consumed too much power and were too hard to keep cool without having a two-inch thick laptop. Manufacturers want to offer slim and sleek laptops the world over, because they sell, that's what people want...who the hell wants to lug around an 8lb laptop with a 330w power brick and still only get two-three hours of battery life to sustain that sort of performance because the CPU is using 100w instead of the 45w TDP its rated at on the ARK.

The iMac is the same thing. An elegant all in one that has a power cord as the only wire (unless you add peripherals) coming out of it. This has been Apple's mantra since the Mac 128K was released in 1984. This should be a shock to no one...most people and prospective Mac owners don't want a tower with separate monitor and wires running from the mouse and keyboard and speaker wires. If they did, they would just stay with a PC, but they are looking at an iMac.

Even if Apple revamped the cooling for the iMac to accommodate the 9900K unlocked (no 95w TDP limit), they would next need to replace the PSU and possibly most of the other components on the motherboard (VRM, et al.). Instead, they locked the TDP and created a balanced computer without wild peaks and valleys.

Hopefully, the next iMac will use the ID of the XDR monitor with a revised iMac Pro style cooling system.

 

[Ethosik]

It's not a monster but a normal cooler lol. Simply Apple never improved iMac's cooler since 2012.

Even Mac Pro 2019 does not have a proper cooling system. We will see how it performs but I already doubt it.

As I said, they have improved the thermals in the iMac Pro. It will come to the iMac eventually.

 

[mavericks7913]

As I said, they have improved the thermals in the iMac Pro. It will come to the iMac eventually.

And I said iMac Pro's cooling system is not enough to cool down. Do you own iMac Pro?

 

[SecuritySteve]

And I said iMac Pro's cooling system is not enough to cool down. Do you own iMac Pro?

Yes, and mine works fine. Do you own an iMac Pro?

 

[mavericks7913]

Yes, and mine works fine. Do you own an iMac Pro?

Yeah?

 

[SecuritySteve]

Yeah?

Then you should know the machine is a beast - and stays cool under heavy load. I run tons of VMs doing CPU-intensive and disk-IO intensive tasks, works just fine and gets the job done without melting into a molten piece of silicon.

I'm also amused you believe the Mac Pro's giant heat sync is not sufficient, nor is its full body airflow solution to cool MPX modules and the CPU simultaneously. Nah ... need that fluid cooler right? Wait, why stop there ... lets get our liquid nitrogen cooling system ...

There we go! That's a real cooler!

 

[Zdigital2015]

Yeah?

That’s not how it works. He asked you the question, do you own an iMac Pro? And if so, why are you making hay about the i9 iMac, anyways?

 

[Glockworkorange]

Real world experience or something you found on the internet?

The iMac Pro is not having this issue. Just sayin...

iMac Pro has a completely different cooling solution. Night and day.
[doublepost=1560899650][/doublepost]

"Uh. It’s called the iMac Pro. The did improve the cooling, but it will take some time for the consumer iMac to get it.
"
Hahaha. I guess you know nothing about computer technology. Even iMac Pro has a limitation with a cooling system. What are you expecting? Do you even own iMac Pro?

"It is not Apple fault. With the current cooling system, does the iMac i9 perform within Intels spec? Yes, so the cooling is fine. In fact, Max videos reported its much cooler and runs better than previous generations."

It IS Apple's fault by not having a PROPER cooling system. WTH are you saying?

View attachment 843719

View attachment 843721
This is a normal air cooling for PC



View attachment 843720
This is iMac's cooling system lol. A small cooling fan to cool both CPU and GPU! lolol. Who's the fault is it then? It is a fact that Apple didnt even put a proper cooling system. Also, Apple is well known for having issues with the cooling system for a long time. Apple 3, PowerMac G4 Cube, Mac Pro 2013, and more.


When you are saying "within Intel's spec", the maximum clock speed is 5ghz or 4.7ghz depends on how many cores you are using. Do iMac can use and maintain the maximum clock speed? NO. iMac's i9 is not even close to Intel's spec and it's a fact.

Do you even know that i9-9900K has four limitations to prevent overheating issues? Running cooler doesnt mean it is better and runs faster. iMac's i9-9900K actually undervolt the CPU to lower the temperature. And yet the temperature is still high and the clock speed is still lower than PC with i9-9900K.

Dude, then buy a PC. What a pointless thread.

 

[mavericks7913]

That’s not how it works. He asked you the question, do you own an iMac Pro? And if so, why are you making hay about the i9 iMac, anyways?

I said yeah and yet you are complaining about my answer.

Apple is not even ready to accept i9 for iMac and that's the point.
[doublepost=1560899866][/doublepost]

iMac Pro has a completely different cooling solution. Night and day.
[doublepost=1560899650][/doublepost]
Dude, then buy a PC. What a pointless thread.

Dont be ignorant. Since Apple cant deals with the cooling system for a long time, that's their fault, not mine. I have a right to complain and criticize about their policy toward cooling system. Do you even have an alternative solution for MacOS? Dont say Hackintosh. The truth is it's not the first time that Apple had issues with the cooling system. Check their history and you will know it. If Apple does not change, then too bad. This is how Mac Pro users got Mac Pro 2019. Ok?
[doublepost=1560899920][/doublepost]

iMac Pro has a completely different cooling solution. Night and day.
[doublepost=1560899650][/doublepost]
Dude, then buy a PC. What a pointless thread.

It is not a pointless threat because Apple products have a cooling issue for a long time. How many times do I have to say that? Did they even improve it? No.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I said yeah and yet you are complaining about my answer.

Apple is not even ready to accept i9 for iMac and that's the point.

You said, "Yeah?", which implies a question, not a statement. But now I know.

People seem to be doing just fine with the Core i9-9900K in the 2019 iMac and many have stated that it runs cooler than the 2017 Core i7-7700K iMac and runs circles around it as well. You can keep digging that hole, but no one is getting in it with you. Good luck!

 

[macdudesir]

=
It is not a pointless threat because Apple products have a cooling issue for a long time. How many times do I have to say that? Did they even improve it? No.

Apple products do not have a consistent or widespread history of cooling problems. The i9 iMac does not have a cooling problem.

I really can't put it clearer for you. Apple's cooling system is adequate to operate within spec. In fact, since it can sustain 200MHz above what Intel's spec is, the cooling system is BETTER than it needs to be. If you want to build a PC with an oversized cooler so you can run max turbo, then be my guest, but you have to understand that the specified max continuous clock speed is 3.6GHz. If they intended it to stay at 4.7GHz forever under max load, that would be the base clock...

I have some evidence for you, not that I think it will matter to you...
Direct from Intel's website -
"Maximum turbo frequency indicates the highest possible frequency achievable when conditions allow the processor to enter turbo mode. Intel® Turbo Boost Technology frequency varies depending on workload, hardware, software, and overall system configuration.

Due to varying power characteristics, some parts with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 may not achieve maximum turbo frequencies when running heavy workloads and using multiple cores concurrently...
Note: Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance."

So - directly from Intel's mouth, it is NOT intended to be consistent max turbo. It is meant to provide a boost in speed for short durations.

Now, I have an analogous situation for you involving cars if that may be your forte...
Some Ford EcoBoost engines have something called "overboost" technology. It basically specifies that continuous max turbo pressure is (for example) 15psi. However, under certain conditions and ONLY when conditions are met - it can go up to (for example) 20PSI for a short duration to provide an extra boost of power. It cannot sustain that, however, as the engine cooling system and engine internals are not designed to hold that load for a long period of time. This is exactly how Intel Turbo Boost technology is supposed to operate. They even have similar names - weird...

I really do hope you are able to open your mind and listen to those responding to you in a thread you created, otherwise the thread was pointless and you obviously can't be satisfied. I understand wanting more performance out of your machine - we all do. But to say that the i9 sucks, that Apple has cooling issues, that the iMac has cooling issues, or that the iMac throttles under a sustained load (it doesn't. Throttling implies dropping below the base clock speed) is plain incorrect. Now if you want to have a conversation about how Apple could improve it while maintaining the form factor (because that is something people care about) then that is a different story and I'm sure you would have a lot of people engaged in a conversation like that.

 

[mavericks7913]

Apple products do not have a consistent or widespread history of cooling problems. The i9 iMac does not have a cooling problem.

I really can't put it clearer for you. Apple's cooling system is adequate to operate within spec. In fact, since it can sustain 200MHz above what Intel's spec is, the cooling system is BETTER than it needs to be. If you want to build a PC with an oversized cooler so you can run max turbo, then be my guest, but you have to understand that the specified max continuous clock speed is 3.6GHz. If they intended it to stay at 4.7GHz forever under max load, that would be the base clock...

I have some evidence for you, not that I think it will matter to you...
Direct from Intel's website -
"Maximum turbo frequency indicates the highest possible frequency achievable when conditions allow the processor to enter turbo mode. Intel® Turbo Boost Technology frequency varies depending on workload, hardware, software, and overall system configuration.

Due to varying power characteristics, some parts with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 may not achieve maximum turbo frequencies when running heavy workloads and using multiple cores concurrently...
Note: Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its TDP configuration and data sheet specified power for short durations to maximize performance."

So - directly from Intel's mouth, it is NOT intended to be consistent max turbo. It is meant to provide a boost in speed for short durations.

Now, I have an analogous situation for you involving cars if that may be your forte...
Some Ford EcoBoost engines have something called "overboost" technology. It basically specifies that continuous max turbo pressure is (for example) 15psi. However, under certain conditions and ONLY when conditions are met - it can go up to (for example) 20PSI for a short duration to provide an extra boost of power. It cannot sustain that, however, as the engine cooling system and engine internals are not designed to hold that load for a long period of time. This is exactly how Intel Turbo Boost technology is supposed to operate. They even have similar names - weird...

I really do hope you are able to open your mind and listen to those responding to you in a thread you created, otherwise the thread was pointless and you obviously can't be satisfied. I understand wanting more performance out of your machine - we all do. But to say that the i9 sucks, that Apple has cooling issues, that the iMac has cooling issues, or that the iMac throttles under a sustained load (it doesn't. Throttling implies dropping below the base clock speed) is plain incorrect. Now if you want to have a conversation about how Apple could improve it while maintaining the form factor (because that is something people care about) then that is a different story and I'm sure you would have a lot of people engaged in a conversation like that.

STOP LYING.

Apple III, PowerMac G4 Cube, Mac Pro 2013 are the best and extreme examples. How dare are you trying to lie? It's not ADEQUATE and yet you are trying to justify how it works. Have you ever build a custom PC before? If you do, then you will know why.

Also, Apple is advertising that iMac 2019 with i9 has 5ghz turbo speed which is a LIE because of the cooling limitation which can not be achieved.

Furthermore, there ARE a lot of people using the max clock speed to sustain for better performance. Oh yeah, do you even aware that Mac will overclock the CPU performance AUTOMATICALLY no matter what you use? How irony as you explained about the turbo speed while Mac automatically uses it.
[doublepost=1560901627][/doublepost]

You said, "Yeah?", which implies a question, not a statement. But now I know.

People seem to be doing just fine with the Core i9-9900K in the 2019 iMac and many have stated that it runs cooler than the 2017 Core i7-7700K iMac and runs circles around it as well. You can keep digging that hole, but no one is getting in it with you. Good luck!

And most of them never had PC with a proper cooling system. That's why they feel that way.

 

[macdudesir]

STOP LYING.

Apple III, PowerMac G4 Cube, Mac Pro 2013 are the best and extreme examples. How dare are you trying to lie? It's not ADEQUATE and yet you are trying to justify how it works. Have you ever build a custom PC before? If you do, then you will know why.

Also, Apple is advertising that iMac 2019 with i9 has 5ghz turbo speed which is a LIE because of the cooling limitation which can not be achieved.

Furthermore, there ARE a lot of people using the max clock speed to sustain for better performance. Oh yeah, do you even aware that Mac will overclock the CPU performance AUTOMATICALLY no matter what you use? How irony as you explained about the turbo speed while Mac automatically uses it.
[doublepost=1560901627][/doublepost]

And most of them never had PC with a proper cooling system. That's why they feel that way.

Yes - keywords are consistent and widespread history...I am not saying it has never happened, but it is not consistent.

I'm not sure I understand your third paragraph - Yes I am aware they overclock automatically for peak performance...that is what my entire post, as well as this entire thread, is about...Apple is advertising up to 5GHz max turbo speed, as is Intel, and they are both correct so it is not a lie...I do not follow, I'm sorry. The entire point of my post is that Intel does not intend for the chip to maintain that quoted 5GHz. Did you read my post at all? I am aware that custom built PCs with oversized coolers can sustain that turbo speed. In fact, I mentioned it in my post and said you are welcome to build one of those.

Also, not that it really matters, yes I have custom built PCs for myself before. Yes, they had oversized coolers to allow components to run higher than the spec they're intended to run. No, I don't think the iMac cooling system is inadequate.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Yes - keywords are consistent and widespread history...I am not saying it has never happened, but it is not consistent.

I'm not sure I understand your third paragraph - Yes I am aware they overclock automatically for peak performance...that is what my entire post, as well as this entire thread, is about...Apple is advertising up to 5GHz max turbo speed, as is Intel, and they are both correct so it is not a lie...I do not follow, I'm sorry. The entire point of my post is that Intel does not intend for the chip to maintain that quoted 5GHz. Did you read my post at all? I am aware that custom built PCs with oversized coolers can sustain that turbo speed. In fact, I mentioned it in my post and said you are welcome to build one of those.

Also, not that it really matters, yes I have custom built PCs for myself before. Yes, they had oversized coolers to allow components to run higher than the spec they're intended to run. No, I don't think the iMac cooling system is inadequate.

The misconception that @mavericks7913 and many others have is that they believe the CPU is supposed to run at the Turbo Boost speed indefinitely, and as long as they have adequate cooling, that's the norm, when Intel clearly states that it isn't. No matter how it is explained to them, they insist that because the Core i9 in the iMac isn't sustaining the same speeds as a PC that the cooling system is inadequate and the CPU is being throttled when that is not the case. I already gave him links to articles on AnandTech regarding these issues. I've argued this before with others who have the same misconception. I guarantee them that if they build an SFF PC (HTPC case) they will see different results that a full size ATX case or an mini-ITX case.

The problem lies with the way Intel has been using these tricks to eek out "extra" performance from their CPUs because there hasn't been any significant gains in overall performance since Sandy Bridge. So now we have 8 cores instead of 4 and Turbo Boost and Thermal Velocity Boost playing havoc with TDPs while the performance from generation to generation continues to creep along because the Tocks have been pretty abysmal. I guess the gains in single core performance have been decent although I'm running a Haswell i7 in my iMac and I'm still getting 4487 in Geekbench 4.3.4, which isn't too shabby for a 6 year old CPU.

The problem continues to be people thinking that the "real" clock speed of a CPU is its Turbo Boost speed, which is not at all what Intel intended, but with which they seem to be fine with people continuing to believe. I don't see this being resolved anytime soon, if ever. And so it goes.

 

[EmlynDewar]

The point is, the current Mac cooling system is not able to cool down Intel's CPU and yet people blaming only Intel! How irony it is. It's not the first time and Apple is focusing on the design and quitness instead of performance. Get it?

I don't have a clue why you're posting in this section, as you clearly aren't interested in the imac. You want a desktop PC with more space. You misunderstand TDP limits, turbo, and how the CPU should work, expecting all-core turbo clocks 100% of the time.
Sure, it'd be great if the imac wasn't SO thin, but it is. The cooling system has not been redesigned because it can keep things working within spec.

 

[codernova]

I've fried circuits in 8088s, pencil unlocked Athlons, and have a brick of an air cooler on my overclocked gaming PC today. Yet I also found the 2019 iMac compelling for my needs.

Apples/Oranges.

 

[priitv8]

Apples/Oranges.

Some people just don't need a computer for anything else but creating benchmarks, producing reviews about them and obsessing about the specs.
I also get my work done on my i9 and never even had to stop to worry about the gigagaherz it can momentarily reach on its core(s).

 

[Ethosik]

STOP LYING.

Apple III, PowerMac G4 Cube, Mac Pro 2013 are the best and extreme examples. How dare are you trying to lie? It's not ADEQUATE and yet you are trying to justify how it works. Have you ever build a custom PC before? If you do, then you will know why.

Also, Apple is advertising that iMac 2019 with i9 has 5ghz turbo speed which is a LIE because of the cooling limitation which can not be achieved.

Furthermore, there ARE a lot of people using the max clock speed to sustain for better performance. Oh yeah, do you even aware that Mac will overclock the CPU performance AUTOMATICALLY no matter what you use? How irony as you explained about the turbo speed while Mac automatically uses it.
[doublepost=1560901627][/doublepost]

And most of them never had PC with a proper cooling system. That's why they feel that way.

I’m sorry. How is this person lying? There’s evidence straight from Intel that both shows the base clock speed in their spec, and what the intention of Turbo Boost is. Did you know you can actually overclock processors to get them to perform better than Intel suggests? Doesn’t mean it’s under performing if you don’t overclock.

The same applies to this i9. Base clock is 3.6 GHz. So far all the reports showed it gets to a minimum of around 3.8 GHz. This is performing better than advertised even with the “horrible” iMac cooling.

 

[mikehalloran]

Hahaha. I guess you know nothing about computer technology.

Look in the mirror, son.

I used iMac Pro for more than one year.
[doublepost=1560638857][/doublepost]

Because Im concerning overheating issues and because of it, iMac does not perform 100%.

He doesn't own one and has no experience. He's concerned? Why—does he sit on Apple's board of directors? He read something on the internet and is stirring up crap.

He clearly knows nothing. So why is anyone still answering this (insert appropriate term here)?

Rhetorical question. I have no interest in any answer.

 

[Glockworkorange]

I said yeah and yet you are complaining about my answer.

Apple is not even ready to accept i9 for iMac and that's the point.
[doublepost=1560899866][/doublepost]

Dont be ignorant. Since Apple cant deals with the cooling system for a long time, that's their fault, not mine. I have a right to complain and criticize about their policy toward cooling system. Do you even have an alternative solution for MacOS? Dont say Hackintosh. The truth is it's not the first time that Apple had issues with the cooling system. Check their history and you will know it. If Apple does not change, then too bad. This is how Mac Pro users got Mac Pro 2019. Ok?
[doublepost=1560899920][/doublepost]

It is not a pointless threat because Apple products have a cooling issue for a long time. How many times do I have to say that? Did they even improve it? No.

It's just incessant whining. It's almost as bad (almost) as complaining about the lack of a headphone jack. You're stating the obvious.

Apple products have issues with cooling because of their thin design. This is as obvious as the fact water is wet. If that is your major gripe, two solutions: 1) iMac Pro, which has better cooling than the other machines or 2) new Mac Pro, which I assume has the best cooling you'll find in a Mac.

I mean, I guess if you just want a place to vent your spleen, sure, but don't attack other people or call them names for trying to make suggestions to you.

And work on your grammar. It's hard to follow what you're saying.