iMac 2017 buying advice

[EugW]

Your SM1024L is a Samsung 960

My 1TB is a 960 PCIe (MZ-V6P1TOBW) Listed as Apple SM1024L in System Profiler.

Probably similar hardware, but with custom Apple firmware. So, not quite the same thing. Good to know though.

Apple does this quite often. They did this back in the HD days too.

BTW, back in the day, I purchased the Kingston V+100 SSD, because it had the same Toshiba SSD controller as the ones shipping in Macs.

 

[Glideslope]

Probably similar hardware, but with custom Apple firmware. So, not quite the same thing.

Don't know the Firmware status. I'm sure it's an Apple variant. The SSD is however the 960 Pro -1TB PCIe NVMe.

 

[J.Gallardo]

It depends on what you do. The 7700k is still fantastic in the current iMac. and in a multithreaded app like cinema 4d CPU bound rendering the i7 7700k is faster than the i5 8600k despite the 8600k having two more cores! In single threaded tests, the 8600k pulls ahead of the 7700k by a bit, and the 8700k by a bit more. Between the 8600k and the 7700k, honestly you won't notice much of a difference. In puget systems tests, the difference between the 7700k and the 8600k is like 4-5%. Is waiting worth it?

The i7 8700k, however, is a great processor. Noticeable improvements everywhere. Single thread about 10%, multithread a lot more. But reviewers all comment on the heat. I wonder if the current iMac form factor could handle iy. The new cooling system of the iMac pro seems perfect for that, but sacrifices ram upgradeability and thus cost is much, much higher.

I know about the waiting game. You can always wait longer, and god help you if Apple doesn't update something fast enough or removes a feature like ram upgradeability. It will drive you nuts!

Nice info.
Just to add some more information about a possible iMac refresh: coffee-lake processors need a new and different motherboard (wich, by the way, is not backwards compatible).
I would think a new iMac (or just new added models) could be factible if it were just as easy as plugging in new cpu’s. But it isn’t so easy...
...And Apple isn’t very fast designing new computers... Do you remember Mac Mini?

 

[jon08]

Nice info.
Just to add some more information about a possible iMac refresh: coffee-lake processors need a new and different motherboard (wich, by the way, is not backwards compatible).
I would think a new iMac (or just new added models) could be factible if it were just as easy as plugging in new cpu’s. But it isn’t so easy...
...And Apple isn’t very fast designing new computers... Do you remember Mac Mini?

Hm, so in that case it would be kind of safe to assume that the Coffee Lake iMacs wouldn’t arrive before fall 2018?

 

[J.Gallardo]

Hm, so in that case it would be kind of safe to assume that the Coffee Lake iMacs wouldn’t arrive before fall 2018?

I assume that.
And I assume also that competing brands won’t be producing much faster AIO desktop systems by then... so, who knows? But coffee-lake cpu’s advantage in laptops could be more evident and brought to Apple sooner.
I can’t figure a pattern in Apple products renovations (even specialists get caught by surprise!).
But, speaking for myself: I’m getting a new iMac, as my 27”i7-2009 has broken (gpu failure... difficult fix). I’ve been for months without a mac... as I’m enjoying working with my iPad Pro 10.5”! I can ALMOST do everything I need.
I’m taking my time to choose my ideal system, and already made a decision (5K-i5/i7?-1tbSSD-580gpu)... but waiting now for a “Black Friday” possible discount ;-)
All these things with High Sierra & APFS made me lazy... (and I’ve been amazed with iOS & new functions in iPad!).
Anyway, I’m buying before Christmas... and I’ve never been so confident about no renewal at sight. No revolutionary new CPUs, nor better gpu from AMD for iMac chassis. No near chassis change, as (next) iMac Pro uses the same (with different internal distribution).
And, this time, iMac provides future-proof connectors, so improving these last iMacs should be easier than in the past.
Oh, and after reading again your opening: I’m thinking also about installing Bootcamp. You could do it on an external USB disk, but it’s supposed to be illegal (!), and needs serious fiddling (I don’t dare). On Tb3 seems easier, as systems thinks its an internal disk (wich is Microsoft requirement); perhaps I’ll go that way. Anyhow, going external Tb3 disks is getting affordable & it offers some advantages over usb.
At the end (as I tend to choose the easiest way) maybe making a small partition, big enough for just Windows, and using an external disk for programs & content could be my choosing.
Well... that was my opinion!

 

[EugW]

Hm, so in that case it would be kind of safe to assume that the Coffee Lake iMacs wouldn’t arrive before fall 2018?

No it’s not safe to assume that.

 

[Jack Burton]

Hm, so in that case it would be kind of safe to assume that the Coffee Lake iMacs wouldn’t arrive before fall 2018?

One can never tell with Apple. What I would focus on is that even if new machines are 4, 6, or 8 months away, the performance leap is not that big unless you use heavily multi-threaded apps and plan on getting an 8700k based iMac.

Right now you can get refurb 7700k iMacs for $400 off. I look at it as I can stop using my god forsaken PC and get back to work. Do you have work that can benefit right now?

For my purposes, the savings on a refurb = Apple care and extra 32GB ram. Plus the refurb comes with 16 GB default, not 8. It's a great value.

And if I need even more power, I can build cheap AMD zen systems for slaves (and use my old PC) or slam the latest GPUs in an eGPU box. The iMac is just a "head" for my computing world now. And what a beautiful display it is. I'm spoiled.

Man, I missed Mac OS.

Oh, and while web browsing and not doing heavy work, this machine is remarkably silent. Like "I can hear the hum of my CFL lightbulb across the room" silent. It get a little noisey when rendering, but I'm OK with that. It's still quieter than the PC I had.

 

[J.Gallardo]

One can never tell with Apple. What I would focus on is that even if new machines are 4, 6, or 8 months away, the performance leap is not that big unless you use heavily multi-threaded apps and plan on getting an 8700k based iMac.

Right now you can get refurb 7700k iMacs for $400 off. I look at it as I can stop using my god forsaken PC and get back to work. Do you have work that can benefit right now?

For my purposes, the savings on a refurb = Apple care and extra 32GB ram. Plus the refurb comes with 16 GB default, not 8. It's a great value.

And if I need even more power, I can build cheap AMD zen systems for slaves (and use my old PC) or slam the latest GPUs in an eGPU box. The iMac is just a "head" for my computing world now. And what a beautiful display it is. I'm spoiled.

Man, I missed Mac OS.

Oh, and while web browsing and not doing heavy work, this machine is remarkably silent. Like "I can hear the hum of my CFL lightbulb across the room" silent. It get a little noisey when rendering, but I'm OK with that. It's still quieter than the PC I had.

I agree. What radical improvement could an iMac bring in 6-8 months? More cpu power.
I think buying refurbished is a good idea. I’ve had iphone5, Time Capsule & an iPad bought this way; they still work without problems.
But we haven’t refurb 2017 iMacs here in Europe (Spain, at least)... Instead, all past gen. models are offered; makes me think there’s plenty stock of “old” iMacs.

 

[EugW]

I agree. What radical improvement could an iMac bring in 6-8 months? More cpu power.
I think buying refurbished is a good idea. I’ve had iphone5, Time Capsule & an iPad bought this way; they still work without problems.
But we haven’t refurb 2017 iMacs here in Europe (Spain, at least)... Instead, all past gen. models are offered; makes me think there’s plenty stock of “old” iMacs.

Apple will bring the 6-core models, and who knows if they’ll update the form factor.

 

[curmudgeonette]

Nice info.
Just to add some more information about a possible iMac refresh: coffee-lake processors need a new and different motherboard (wich, by the way, is not backwards compatible).

The circuit board change is minor: Some unused processor pins become power supply pins, and the support chip needs to be changed. This level of change happens all the time during production - a change in component vendors can require minor changes.

Would Apple make this change? I don't know. They've demonstrated a willingness to remain on an old chip when the new one doesn't give users much benefit. Does Coffee Lake offer improvements? The 8700K certainly does when cranked up to full power. But what if thermals limit it to the same power consumption as Kaby Lake? In that case, how does a fast four core compare with a slow six core?

Also, just what exactly "is" Coffee Lake? There is some online speculation that some CFL models (the quad core i3's) are just rebranded Kaby Lake. This might mean that Intel has no intention of mass producing CFL processors in Apple quantities.

Finally, how would a hypothetical maxed out 8700K iMac compare with a much more expensive eight core iMac Pro?

 

[eldivino]

That's great! Let me know what you think of the Fusion Drive. I am waiting for my RAM to arrive before I set up.

Loving the fusion drive actually. Certainly not the same compared to the speeds of the SSD on my MacBook Pro but it works for me. Hows everything working out for you?

 

[jon08]

Can somebody tell me a about AppleCare for iMac?

Are there both Applecare and Applecare+? Or is there only the latter?

 

[SaSaSushi]

Can somebody tell me a about AppleCare for iMac?

Are there both Applecare and Applecare+? Or is there only the latter?

Both, but Apple is no longer selling the old version.

If you manage to find a copy you can still register it via telephone with Apple no problem.

I went with the old AppleCare on my 2017 iMac because I don't need the accidental damage coverage. I also got it a lot cheaper from a third party seller on Amazon.

 

[Fishrrman]

I don't think AppleCare+ would prove useful for an iMac -- "regular" AppleCare if you wish.

re AppleCare in general, some tips:
- DON'T buy AC on ebay (where the seller just provides you with a registration number instead of "a sealed box". These are 100% rip-offs, with "made-up" registration numbers).
- There are a few online resellers that DO offer [legitimate] AC at discounts. I believe "LA Computer Company" is one, though I've never bought from them. With these, you get a sealed box with the registration number inside.

 

[SaSaSushi]

re AppleCare in general, some tips:
- DON'T buy AC on ebay (where the seller just provides you with a registration number instead of "a sealed box". These are 100% rip-offs, with "made-up" registration numbers).
- There are a few online resellers that DO offer [legitimate] AC at discounts. I believe "LA Computer Company" is one, though I've never bought from them. With these, you get a sealed box with the registration number inside.

Full agreement about the eBay codes.

I've purchased AppleCare from L.A. Computer in the past and they are fully legit but sadly, it seems like they may have run out of stock of the original AppleCare since I can't seem to find it on their website anymore.

Definitely don't buy opened packages or serial numbers from anyone. The copy I bought from a third party seller on Amazon was in brand new, shrink-wrapped condition although it was about 7 years old.

 

[MCAsan]

We got ours this week from B&H for $150 off each plus no shipping or sales tax.

 

[jon08]

Full agreement about the eBay codes.

I've purchased AppleCare from L.A. Computer in the past and they are fully legit but sadly, it seems like they may have run out of stock of the original AppleCare since I can't seem to find it on their website anymore.

Definitely don't buy unopened packages or serial numbers from anyone. The copy I bought from a third party seller on Amazon was in brand new, shrink-wrapped condition although it was about 7 years old.

Hm, so should I pay attention to particular part number to make sure I buy the latest AppleCare? For my MBP I previously bought AppleCare from eBay as well and didn't have any problems with it.

Wouldn't you know immediately upon trying to register AppleCare online if you received a fake one? And you would be covered with eBay Buyer Protection anyway?

 

[SaSaSushi]

Hm, so should I pay attention to particular part number to make sure I buy the latest AppleCare?

You don't need to worry about part numbers so much as AppleCare versus the new AppleCare+. The former plan without the accidental coverage should be able to be purchased at a discount.

For my MBP I previously bought AppleCare from eBay as well and didn't have any problems with it.

eBay is probably OK so long as you are buying an unused, in-the-box product from a reputable seller and not just an AppleCare registration number.

 

[jon08]

Thanks everyone for your replies so far.

Geez. I'm still on the fence regarding my iMac purchase.

Now it's about getting an i5-7600k now or waiting for those much-talked-about 6-core CPUs *supposedly* coming next summer/fall.

I intend to keep my iMac for at least 3-5 years if possible.

1. The main problem with waiting for another 6-10 months is the following:

My current late-2011 MBP is 6 years old. It already had its motherboard (GPU) replaced once while still under warranty (and also had its battery replaced on another occasion). As we know that batch of 2011 MBPs was known for faulty GPUs so I'm quite worried it may give up the ghost on me while I'm still waiting for the *supposed* iMac refresh next year. So if I get rid of it now that it's still in perfect condition I can probably still get a solid $650-750 for it here in Europe, which is about 1/4 of the iMac price. But if it died on me during this time I'd pretty much be left with nothing (or perhaps some spare change *if* I managed to sell it for parts).

2. How much would 6 cores even benefit my use vs. 4 cores? As mentioned above, most of my usage includes the following apps:

- web browsing
- iTunes
- M$ Office
- Pixelmator (might get into Photoshop as well sometimes) as a hobby
- Garageband/Reason as a hobby
- movies (VLC mostly)
- occasional audio editing in Audacity/Fission
- occasional mp3 tag editing in MPFreaker
- occasional work in Terminal (make / make install commands that will build up dictionary databases)
- would like to do some gaming on macOS (Steam) & Bootcamp (even AAA titles)

Which of the above apps would even take advantage of more cores (and/or hyper-threading for that matter)?

Also, I have a library of 20+ custom-built dictionaries (different languages) in my Dictionary app: often when I start typing a longer word it will start lagging and will only display the word in the Search field and then the definitions of the word in all the dictionaries available after even up to 10 seconds (!). I suppose the Dictionary app uses a single core only?

 

[SecuritySteve]

Thanks everyone for your replies so far.

Geez. I'm still on the fence regarding my iMac purchase.

Now it's about getting an i5-7600k now or waiting for those much-talked-about 6-core CPUs *supposedly* coming next summer/fall.

I intend to keep my iMac for at least 3-5 years if possible.

1. The main problem with waiting for another 6-10 months is the following:

My current late-2011 MBP is 6 years old. It already had its motherboard (GPU) replaced once while still under warranty (and also had its battery replaced on another occasion). As we know that batch of 2011 MBPs was known for faulty GPUs so I'm quite worried it may give up the ghost on me while I'm still waiting for the *supposed* iMac refresh next year. So if I get rid of it now that it's still in perfect condition I can probably still get a solid $650-750 for it here in Europe, which is about 1/4 of the iMac price. But if it died on me during this time I'd pretty much be left with nothing (or perhaps some spare change *if* I managed to sell it for parts).

2. How much would 6 cores even benefit my use vs. 4 cores? As mentioned above, most of my usage includes the following apps:

- web browsing
- iTunes
- M$ Office
- Pixelmator (might get into Photoshop as well sometimes) as a hobby
- Garageband/Reason as a hobby
- movies (VLC mostly)
- occasional audio editing in Audacity/Fission
- occasional mp3 tag editing in MPFreaker
- occasional work in Terminal (make / make install commands that will build up dictionary databases)
- would like to do some gaming on macOS (Steam) & Bootcamp (even AAA titles)

Which of the above apps would even take advantage of more cores (and/or hyper-threading for that matter)?

Also, I have a library of 20+ custom-built dictionaries (different languages) in my Dictionary app: often when I start typing a longer word it will start lagging and will only display the word in the Search field and then the definitions of the word in all the dictionaries available after even up to 10 seconds (!). I suppose the Dictionary app uses a single core only?

1. Just do it. I'm sure you'll be happy with the purchase after the fact, assuming you can give up the mobility of your MBP.
2. 6 Cores (and hyper threading) will help with the following tasks listed:
Audio Editing
Terminal Work
Pixelmator
Gaming (GPU will have a vastly larger impact though, but it does help)

The rest are either so small of a CPU impact that 4 core vs 6 core wont matter or can't utilize multicore performance, and instead benefits from higher-frequency lower-core-count processors.

Remember the rule of thumb for computers: You get what you pay for.

 

[jon08]

2. 6 Cores (and hyper threading) will help with the following tasks listed:
Audio Editing
Terminal Work
Pixelmator
Gaming (GPU will have a vastly larger impact though, but it does help)

The rest are either so small of a CPU impact that 4 core vs 6 core wont matter or can't utilize multicore performance, and instead benefits from higher-frequency lower-core-count processors.

Remember the rule of thumb for computers: You get what you pay for.

What about if I decided to do some 4k video editing in the future? Would i5-7600k still be powerful enough to do it without any lagging/stuttering? Is hyperthreading necessary for seamless encoding/rendering, or does it just help to speed up the time you need to get the job done?

 

[curmudgeonette]

Now it's about getting an i5-7600k now or waiting for those much-talked-about 6-core CPUs *supposedly* coming next summer/fall.

The hex cores are somewhat of an enigma. When fed enough power, and cooled sufficiently, they certainly are faster than quad cores. However, Intel's TDP spec is basically a lie. To get the most out of the hex cores, a system has to have much better cooling. If limited to quad core rated cooling, the hex cores may have to seriously downthrottle. It is hard to find information about this - most reviewers are providing whatever the chip needs to run at its maximum.

So: I feel that there is a chance that Apple skips the hex cores entirely! What if Apple dropped them into the existing platform, and found that the limited cooling created a system that was no faster than the quad cores? Apple wouldn't hesitate to stay with Kaby Lake. They've skipped upgrades in the past when they didn't provide any benefit to the user.

 

[EugW]

The hex cores are somewhat of an enigma. When fed enough power, and cooled sufficiently, they certainly are faster than quad cores. However, Intel's TDP spec is basically a lie. To get the most out of the hex cores, a system has to have much better cooling. If limited to quad core rated cooling, the hex cores may have to seriously downthrottle. It is hard to find information about this - most reviewers are providing whatever the chip needs to run at its maximum.

So: I feel that there is a chance that Apple skips the hex cores entirely! What if Apple dropped them into the existing platform, and found that the limited cooling created a system that was no faster than the quad cores? Apple wouldn't hesitate to stay with Kaby Lake. They've skipped upgrades in the past when they didn't provide any benefit to the user.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1185...-lake-review-8700k-and-8400-initial-numbers/5

The Core i7-8700K has a TDP of 95W, but consumes 86.2W at full load, of which the cores account for 78.6W. The rest of the power is consumed mostly by the uncore and the memory controller.

The Core i5-8400 is rated at 65W, and consumes only 49.3W at full load, of which 41.7W is from the cores.

At least according to the graph above, the so-called 95 Watt i7-8700K uses about the same power as the 91 Watt i7-7700K. This is not true in all benches though (see below).

However, if I were to buy a new iMac in 2018, it'd probably be an i5-8400. It uses power that would likely be in the ballpark of the i5-7600 non-K or maybe even the i5-7500, but with much higher performance. The i5-8400 in multithreaded applications can be much faster than even an i5-7600K.

As for the 8600K:

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3157-intel-i5-8600k-review-overclocking-vs-8700k-8400/page-3

As you can see, the i5-8600K does run hotter than the i5-7600K, but according to this test runs cooler than the i7-7700K. This one does indicate that the i7-8700K does run significantly hotter, yes, but the key here is the i5-8600K might be an option as it doesn't heat up as much as the current 7700K, but in multi-threaded applications is faster than the i7-7700K.

But like I said, my interest in 2018 would lean toward the i5-8400. I had to buy in 2017 so after returning my loud 2017 7700K, I bought the 2017 i5-7600. As mentioned, the 7600 non-K probably uses ballpark similar power as the i5-8400... and is pretty much always silent unless I max out the CPU for 10 minutes. In contrast, i7-7700K iMac gets loud in just 30 seconds.

tl;dr:

Power:
i7-8700K
i7-7700K
i5-8600K
i5-7600K
i5-7600
i5-8400
i5-7500

Performance:
i7-8700K
i5-8600K
i7-7700K
i5-8400
i5-7600K
i5-7600
i5-7500

The rankings above are rough, but should hold true more or less. Looking at the above, the i5-8400 looks really attractive if you don't need absolutely max CPU speed.

However, if you need to buy today and don't like fan noise, then the i5-7600K is a decent choice. I bought the i5-7600 though.

 

[J.Gallardo]

Very well explained and totally reasonable...
But they don’t think that way in Cupertino!
Knowing Apple, I find the same chance as in saying next iMacs will mount Intel and ARM-kind processors sharing work (rumors do exist).

 

[ravinder08]

Well, how much difference would a 6-core i5 make compared to the current 4-core i5 to an average user? Unfortunately I don’t have the extra $500 or more to spare on an i7 machine (nor have I been convinced that it’s necessary, as I don’t do much intensive heavy encoding and what not on my computer, and from what I hear the i7s often tend to rev the fans more, which is another reason for me to consider the quieter i5 instead?), so I’ve been considering the base CPU option (i5 3.4 Ghz). I see that you have the slightly faster 3.5 Ghz one, so how does it suit your needs? Does it ever feel like you could use more?

If I were to buy an iMac I’d like to keep it for the next 5-6 yrs, so what does disappoint me slightly is that this i5 in iMac doesn’t score all that much more on Geekbench than my 6-yr-old MBP with i7 2.2 Ghz. On my MBP I get 2966 single core and 9847 multi core vs. iMac 2017 i5 3.4 Ghz 5041 single core and 13674 multi core (as per geekbench.com blog entry). Which makes the iMac cca. 40% faster at single core and cca. 30% faster at multi core.

If you're unsure whether to upgrade you're not in immediate need for one so if I was in your shoes I'd wait at least a year as there could be a redesign and you'll kick yourself for not waiting, remember this design is now 5 years old.