i9 sucks?

[mavericks7913]

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.

Look in the mirror, son.


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.

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.

Too bad then. This is why other communities including Reddit blaming and joking on MacRumors users because of lack of knowledge. If you can't believe it, check other sites. I'm out of here.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Too bad then. This is why other communities including Reddit blaming and joking on MacRumors users because of lack of knowledge. If you can't believe it, check other sites. I'm out of here.

We're not going to miss you.

 

[EmlynDewar]

Too bad then. This is why other communities including Reddit blaming and joking on MacRumors users because of lack of knowledge. If you can't believe it, check other sites. I'm out of here.

There is a lot of biased information on this site, but you'd expect it in a site called MacRumors.
The only misinformation in this thread though, comes from you.

I'm assuming you're still in school, and you're just regurgitating inaccurate information heard elsewhere.
Once you learn how things are meant to work, also the definition of "maximum", you'll stop making these kind of threads.

 

[shokunin]

I'm surprised no one posted up this article:

https://www.anandtech.com/print/13591/the-intel-core-i9-9900k-at-95w-fixing-the-power-for-sff

Basically left unrestricted the 9900k shouble be able to do 4.7 on all cores, but waaaay past it's rated TDP and power consumption. If you actually lock the cpu down to 95w, it does all cores at base frequency (3.6ghz).

If apple had a better cooling system then they could have upped the TDP power envelope assuming the power supply could handle it.

The current iMac design is 8 years old, time for a new revamped chasis with better cooling.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I'm surprised no one posted up this article:

https://www.anandtech.com/print/13591/the-intel-core-i9-9900k-at-95w-fixing-the-power-for-sff

Basically left unrestricted the 9900k shouble be able to do 4.7 on all cores, but waaaay past it's rated TDP and power consumption. If you actually lock the cpu down to 95w, it does all cores at base frequency (3.6ghz).

If apple had a better cooling system then they could have upped the TDP power envelope assuming the power supply could handle it.

The current iMac design is 8 years old, time for a new revamped chasis with better cooling.

I linked to two articles on AnandTech, but I forgot that particular one...and it is a very germane to this thread.

I can fully accept that the Core i9-9900K is an unlocked CPU, meant to be overclocked, but Intel’s been playing fast and loose with TDP for a number of years. I was surprised to see Apple use this part, but the 65w Core i9-9900 wasn’t released until a month later and Apple has used “K” version CPUs since 2014. My Late 2013 Core i7 27” iMac uses a the i7-4771, which is an 84w TDP part, but is locked at 84w TDP. If I look at the ARK - https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u.../4th-generation-intel-core-i7-processors.html - the sheer number of 4th Gen Core i7 CPUs is just mind-boggling at 48 separate SKUs. Now, most of them are variants of one form or another, but if I check on the 9th Gen Core i7 CPUs, there are just 12 and if I add the Core i9 in there as well, there are just 6 there for a total of 18 high end SKUs. Intel has reduced the breadth and depth of what any vendor has to choose from for their system.

Had Intel offered a non “K” 95w TDP version of the the 9900K, call it the i9-9991, then I think there might have been less complaining about “lost” computing potential due to the thermal constraints of the iMac case. However, when Apple introduced the slim iMac in Late 2012, the top BTO CPU for the iMac was the Core i7-3770 at 3.4GHz with a TDP of 77w.

It’s time for Apple to revamp the iMac chassis, there’s no doubt, but I think that the engineers did an excellent job in making sure the current chassis could deal with higher TDP CPUs. Clearly, it was not designed to handle a 165w of power consumption, especially not the power supply, which is probably just as much an issue at the cooling system.

Hopefully, a redesign based off the XDR Display’s industrial design will be coming soon with cooling and TDP being addressed for both the iMac and iMac Pro.

 

[Martyimac]

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.

There is ALWAYS at least one poster on every forum I read that has your attitude. That attitude is "I am right and you folks are ignorant for not believing me". Problem is, your shouting and insistence to being right is falling on the deaf ears of folks who have more experience overall than you seem to have.
I just got a new, 2019 I9 imac and have some observations for you.
In every instance I have tried since receiving this iMac, I can tell you that it runs at LEAST 30-40℉ less than the 2013 Mac Pro I had. E.G. my GPU PECI on the iMac I9 is running about 115℉ whereas the MP would run, on average, at 160℉ That parameter was highest temperature I remember. My CPU is running at 105℉ whereas before on the MP it would be at least 145℉. Considering how open the MP was and the fact the whole inside structure was a heat sink, I think  has the heat load pretty well managed on my iMac.

 

[WebHead]

I was all set to get an i9 but this thread has given me pause. Would I be better off with an i5 + VEGA than an i9 + 580?

The most intensive stuff I'll be doing is ripping H.265 video and playing videogames.

 

[PBMB]

I was all set to get an i9 but this thread has given me pause. Would I be better off with an i5 + VEGA than an i9 + 580?

From the beginning, and before seeing concrete numbers regarding the iMac, it was clear to me that a chip like the current i9 could not unleash all of its power in such a slim machine. It performs very nicely and Apple did a great job to make it fit in the iMac chassis, but it cannot reach its full potential. It is simple logic. This is why I decided to go with the combination i5 + Vega 48. Moreover, if you care about the recent hardware vulnerabilities (Spectre and the like), the i5 does not have hyperthreading so it is a better choice in that respect.

The most intensive stuff I'll be doing is ripping H.265 video and playing videogames.

Under heavy load in Handbrake, Intel Power Gadget reports a continuous 4.0-4.1 GHz for the i5 CPU (I guess all 6 cores because iStat menus shows them all at almost 100% utilisation). Moreover, the Vega 48 barely moves under normal work or CPU intensive tasks. You need a demanding game or a hardware accelerated video converter to see it really busy. There are certainly much more powerful GPUs out there, but for the power it draws and the temperatures it reaches, it is indeed a very powerful graphics chip.

 

[WebHead]

Great, thanks for the comprehensive reply! Will give it some further thought.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I was all set to get an i9 but this thread has given me pause. Would I be better off with an i5 + VEGA than an i9 + 580?

The most intensive stuff I'll be doing is ripping H.265 video and playing videogames.

The Core i5, Vega 48 and 512 GB SSD combo is probably the best overall in terms of least heat, high performance and value for the money, IMHO.

The Core i9-9900K routinely blows past its TDP and up to the 165w used, which just too much for the iMac chassis and PSU as it stands. If the iMac had inherited the iMac pro cooling system then it would not be a problem. However, I think Apple is refraining until they decide to redesign the iMac to improve cooling and power delivery. I guess we will see how the chassis does, should Apple be able to update to Comet Lake-S (8-, 10-core) when Intel releases those CPUs. Given that they will most likely are not going be a drop/in replacement for the current Coffee Lake-R, Apple May skip putting them in the current chassis and opt to have them be the launch CPUs for an XDR Display styled iMac. Guess we’ll see if October brings us anything or if that is a next year’s release. Conflicting reports says Comet Lake-S is possible in Q4/2019, but Intel’s roadmap says Q2/2020.

The future is always just around the corner.

 

[WebHead]

Thanks for the insight! So you expect at least one more generation of Intel iMacs before they go ARM?

That was the other part of my dilemma: whether to hold out for the A-series ones. But there's no guarantee they're coming anytime soon.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Thanks for the insight! So you expect at least one more generation of Intel iMacs before they go ARM?

That was the other part of my dilemma: whether to hold out for the A-series ones. But there's no guarantee they're coming anytime soon.

Do you need a computer now? If you do, buy it and do your best to ignore the rest, it's just a horrible hamster wheel to stay on and it prevents you from embracing and doing, making. Instead you second guess because the future is just around the corner, it's a sinister form of paralysis, IMHO.

Honestly, who know what Apple is going to do at this point. With Jony Ive's departure after Angela Ahrendts, things are changing...for retail, I see good things happening, and a return of some common sense leaving this boutique mentality behind. Ive leaving may have everything to do with the Mac Pro, but I suspect he just wants to go back to England. I seem to remember an article in which he expressed a desire to move back.

Don't hold out for the A-Series. Too much is in flux now. Catalyst is a good thing, but its new and a new bridge ti traverse with pitfalls along the way. My belief is that the Intel stuff goes higher end and more expensive, thicker, beautiful, but more utilitarian (Trucks) and the A-Series is thinner, hybridized, lower end horsepower, more energy efficient, but limited forms (Cars and SUV/CUVs), hopefully cheaper (haha).

Even if A-Series comes in 2020, do you want to be the one buying one because you waited and now get to go through Apple's growing pains, if there are any (again, haha, we know there will be)?

For me, my workflow is 80% macOS, 20% iPad...with iPadOS, I am going to flip it within the year and be driving a sportscar (it might be a Triumph for a bit while Apple shakes out iPadOS) as my daily driver, while the truck sits in the garage.

Again, this is all my opinion, so trust your gut, I am no soothsayer, just a mildly informed observer. Hope that helps!

 

[WebHead]

Yeah, thanks again, my 2011 iMac has been out of commission a few months now since I attempted to fix it myself (reballed its third GPU but then broke something else every time I opened it up) so the time is ripe. And yes, even if the A-series becomes a reality next year they’ll still need to support the installed base for a few more years.

Plus it’s nice to have the Boot Camp/Parallels option a bit longer.

 

[kis]

Real world experience or something you found on the internet?

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

Neither is the IMac 2019. The new thermal system works wonders, it stays cool and exceptionally quiet

 

[kis]

It certainly does not, but you cannot expect it to perform at full power in the iMac enclosure. A part of its potential cannot be unleashed.

This is why I ordered a new iMac with the i5 CPU and the Vega 48 GPU. I remember having seen reports showing that it runs cooler than the 580X, even under light system load. I have no idea why but this would leave some more thermal room, so to say, for the CPU to perform better. I would like to do some testing when I receive it but I don't know exactly what.

Don't know, the i9 with the Vega is a total beast and whisper quiet. Never had a more pleasant to use computer on my life.

 

[quagmire]

Not this BS again....

Yes when allowed to go above its 95W TDP, the 9900K can do 4.7 Ghz on all 8 cores. But when limited to its 95W TDP, it does 3.6 Ghz according to an anandtech test. Also I have yet to see my i9 go above 85-88W, but still sustains a 3.8 Ghz speed on all 8 cores.

Yes the 9900K isn't at its full potential, but at the same time it isn't thermal throttling. It is still technically in turbo at 3.8 Ghz on all 8 cores and 16 threads.

 

[WebHead]

I've decided to go with the i9 after all. Bottom line, it's still faster even if not at its full potential. And from others' experience there are no overheating issues.

Thanks to this forum I could make a fully informed choice based on all the pros and cons.

 

[Reality4711]

It seems if you constantly work with iMac 2019 with i9-9900K, the maximum speed is 3.8ghz due to iMac's poor cooling performance. I dont have an exact data for short uses but this is very concerning result since iMac cannot use high clock speed. Few iMac 2019 from my area reported that iMac 2019 is so hot. Technically, the inner designed didnt change since 2012. I mean the cooling system. What do you expect? i9-9900K requires a high-end CPU cooler and yet iMac has a small fan to cool both CPU and GPU at once which is the worst cooling system I ever saw.

Perhaps I should wait for the next model since Apple didnt update iMac with a new design since 2012? They def need to make a whole new iMac with better cooling system or it wont be able to use all the power from CPU.

just go buy something bettered shut up.

 

[webpoet73]

As an experienced system builder, the only way to get to and maintain 4.7GHz on all cores is with water cooling. I have done almost a half-dozen builds with Core i9-9900k CPUs. Most people elect to use water cooling and will definitely get better performance from the 9900k than their air-cooled counterparts.

During testing for the new Ryzen CPUs, Bitwit (Kyle) did a comparison with 9900k, but to get 5000 on Cinebench r20, the system was on an Open air test bench and cooled with a 360mm closed loop cooler. So to say that the i9 sucks is just plain stupid. Until Apple comes up with a monster air-cooled system or water cooling, this is the performance you are going to get.

The i9 does not suck, but cooling with air and not liquid will decrease it's max performance. Almost no YouTubers who reviewed it without liquid cooling. Why? To get the most performance out of it. Plain and simple.

Edit 1: I use MacFans Control to engage the fans faster (albeit not very quiet) and was able to get over 4000 on Cinebench r20. Even with the temps down in the 80's, it still capped off at 3.8GHz. That might be an arbitrary limit, though.

Edit 2: Running Epic Games store and downloading some games... I have it at 4.60GHz sustained. The fans are loud, but here ya go...

 

[Zdigital2015]

View attachment 847198 As an experienced system builder, the only way to get to and maintain 4.7GHz on all cores is with water cooling. I have done almost a half-dozen builds with Core i9-9900k CPUs. Most people elect to use water cooling and will definitely get better performance from the 9900k than their air-cooled counterparts.

During testing for the new Ryzen CPUs, Bitwit (Kyle) did a comparison with 9900k, but to get 5000 on Cinebench r20, the system was on an Oper air test bench and cooled with a 360mm closed loop cooler. So to say that the i9 sucks is just plain stupid. Until Apple comes up with a monster air-cooled system or water cooling, this is the performance you are going to get.

The i9 does not suck, but cooling with air and not liquid will decrease it's max performance. Almost no YouTubers who reviewed it without liquid cooling. Why? To get the most performance out of it. Plain and simple.

Edit 1: I use MacFans Control to engage the fans faster (albeit not very quiet) and was able to get over 4000 on Cinebench r20. Even with the temps down in the 80's, it still capped off at 3.8GHz. That might be an arbitrary limit, though.

Edit 2: Running Epic Games store and downloading some games... I have it at 4.60GHz sustained. The fans are loud, but here ya go...

View attachment 847205 View attachment 847206

I honestly believe that Apple designed this chassis with a max of a 95w TDP in mind even back in 2012 when it was introduced. I know the 7700K does poorly in this chassis, but the current 8th and 9th Gen seem to be just fine.

I fact that the 9900K can ramp up all the way to a 254w TDP is simply bonkers, considering that is close to the starting TDP for the Xeon W-3175X, which even Intel had a bit of trouble cooling when they first demoed it. I only read the AnandTech articles which had it reaching 165w TDP fairly easily. The CPU is a beast, but needs beastly cooling to really get its legs...