iMac i5 vs i7 real life difference for average user

[lali]

Well, I just ordered the i7 version. Since the thermals and noise are expected to be the same as the higher-end i5 due to the same power consumption, why not go for extra performance. It's really not much more money.

Hello iMi
Having bought in late 2012 the high-end iMac I never regretted the purchase. I have run handbrake hundreds if time for hours at a time, never an issue. Core i7/3.4. The one thing I will say however is that I am sorry I never got an SSD. That is the weak link in my computer (fusion looks fast at first, but after 5 years not so much in comparison to SSD). Enjoy. By the way the lowest end 27" 2017 is now faster than my i7, crazy!

 

[iMi]

Hello iMi
Having bought in late 2012 the high-end iMac I never regretted the purchase. I have run handbrake hundreds if time for hours at a time, never an issue. Core i7/3.4. The one thing I will say however is that I am sorry I never got an SSD. That is the weak link in my computer (fusion looks fast at first, but after 5 years not so much in comparison to SSD). Enjoy. By the way the lowest end 27" 2017 is now faster than my i7, crazy!

I have decided to go with the 2TB Fusion drive. It's really the only option that is reasonable in my opinion. I recently build a gaming PC and was able to purchase 1TB M.2 SSD drive for under $300. It's not as fast at the Samsung models, but $600 on top of the 128GB SSD and 2TB spinner is just insane. The middle option wasn't enough (although somewhat more reasonably priced) and I really don't want external storage.

So, the Fusion was the ultimate decision.

 

[lali]

I understand your choice, I have a different use case, I could live with a small SSD for apps, and all my movies and tv shows are 100% on external drive anyways. Enjoy your iMac!

 

[badlydrawnboy]

There's another thread where people are claiming that the i7 may be significantly noisier than the i5.

I'm trying to decide between the i7 and i5 myself. I have the late 2014 5k 27" (4Ghz i7), and the fan does kick on more than I'd like. I do a lot of audio recording and screencasting, so quiet is key.

That said, I also process a lot of RAW photos in LR and PS. In LR, I still get a spinning beach ball for a few seconds when I switch back and forth between the library and develop modules. This isn't a huge deal, but it's irritating—especially since I bought the top-of-the-line model in 2014 and have a 512 GB SSD and 32 GB of RAM.

I never have this issue when editing the same RAW files on my 2016 Macbook Pro, and didn't have it on the 2013 Macbook Air that I had before I upgraded to the MBP. This suggests that the issue is the 5k screen on the iMac; as someone said earlier in this thread, that's a lot of pixels to drive.

I asked about it over on the Adobe forum, and the consensus there is that the CPU is to blame if I'm seeing a slow down when switching from library to develop. Some processes have been optimized to use the GPU in LR, but that isn't one of them.

So, if not for this LR issue, I'd go for the i5 in a heartbeat. I don't edit video or play games, and the i5 would be enough for me. But if I'm going to spend >$3k on a new iMac, I want to be sure that it doesn't have the same issue that my current late 2014 iMac has with LR.

 

[Falcon80]

Well, I just ordered the i7 version. Since the thermals and noise are expected to be the same as the higher-end i5 due to the same power consumption, why not go for extra performance. It's really not much more money.

I am just curious why would i7 be nosier than i5 if they have same power consumption/heat generation.

 

[BuCkDoG]

I am just curious why would i7 be nosier than i5 if they have same power consumption/heat generation.

Because due to the higher clock speeds and hyper threading the i7 heats up faster which makes the fans spin up faster and more frequent. Trust me though people are way overblowing this fan stuff with the iMac. It's not going to sound like a vacuum even at full 2700 rpm.

 

[Falcon80]

Because due to the higher clock speeds and hyper threading the i7 heats up faster which makes the fans spin up faster and more frequent. Trust me though people are way overblowing this fan stuff with the iMac. It's not going to sound like a vacuum even at full 2700 rpm.

Noted. I am actually more attracted to the i7 due to the higher clock speed to handle more complex tasks faster rather than the hyper threading.

 

[rico7578]

Hello all,

did you see this interessant article comparing i7-7700K (the i7 of the imacs 27) and i5-7600K (the 3.8 Ghz of the high end imac 27) and i5-7600 (the 3.5 Ghz of the medium imac 27") :
http://www.tomshardware.fr/articles/test-7700k-7700-7600k-7600,2-2606.html

It is in french, but basically it says that the i7-7700K temperature during full load is 100°C, the i5-7600K (3.8 Ghz of the imac highend) is 90°C and the i5-7600 (3.5 Ghz of the imac 27" medium) is only 70°C, as indeed the i7-7700K and i5-7600K are like overclocked i5-7600 processors.
And so the i5-7600 processor is the standard one, the one with the best nominal state for the transistors, so the best yield of the 3. So it means less noise (fan speed) and less temperature, for just a little less performance (10-15%).

This article convinced me to take the i5-7600 3.5 GHz of the imac 27" medium, instead of the imac 27" highend model. (+ option SSD 512Gb for Lightroom catalog performances, even if the photos are stored on an external USB3 disk + magic trackpad2, prefered to the standard mouse)

So think about that... does the little bump in performances of the highend imac 27" model (with i7-7700K or i5-7600K) justifies the disagreements of noise and heat avoided on the medium imac 27" with the perfectly optimized i5-7600... ?

 

[shaunp]

the i5 will be fine for now and if you look around at benchmarks there won't be a huge difference between and i5 and an i7 in the kind of tasks you are doing. There's one argument about having an i7 as the machine will potentially last you longer as you will benefit from the extra performance later on. I guess it depends on how long you intend to keep the machine. If 3 years or less, then go for the i5, if you plan to keep it for a long time then maybe go for the i7, but I'd be inclined to upgrade the GPU and the SSD before I did this. It's a real pain to upgrade the internal SSD, so I'd just go for the biggest I could afford. Same with the GPU, just get the best one.

 

[Zapp21]

Hello all,

did you see this interessant article comparing i7-7700K (the i7 of the imacs 27) and i5-7600K (the 3.8 Ghz of the high end imac 27) and i5-7600 (the 3.5 Ghz of the medium imac 27") :
http://www.tomshardware.fr/articles/test-7700k-7700-7600k-7600,2-2606.html

It is in french, but basically it says that the i7-7700K temperature during full load is 100°C, the i5-7600K (3.8 Ghz of the imac highend) is 90°C and the i5-7600 (3.5 Ghz of the imac 27" medium) is only 70°C, as indeed the i7-7700K and i5-7600K are like overclocked i5-7600 processors.
And so the i5-7600 processor is the standard one, the one with the best nominal state for the transistors, so the best yield of the 3. So it means less noise (fan speed) and less temperature, for just a little less performance (10-15%).

This article convinced me to take the i5-7600 3.5 GHz of the imac 27" medium, instead of the imac 27" highend model. (+ option SSD 512Gb for Lightroom catalog performances, even if the photos are stored on an external USB3 disk + magic trackpad2, prefered to the standard mouse)

So think about that... does the little bump in performances of the highend imac 27" model (with i7-7700K or i5-7600K) justifies the disagreements of noise and heat avoided on the medium imac 27" with the perfectly optimized i5-7600... ?

You're absolutely right! I thought the i5-7600K was the best compromise between noise/temperature/power consumption and performance, but I'll probably go with the i5-7600 mid-tier model instead.
The drawbacks with the i5-7600K compared to the i5-7600 are just ridiculous when you consider the marginal single digit performance gain.

"The most mainstream CPU in our line-up is also the most economical and efficient. That's not just because of our sample's quality, either. Rather, the Core i5-7600’s frequency range is a lot closer to the processor’s sweet spot. This makes the quad-core model ideal for applications that put a premium on minimizing waste heat. Consider it for small form factor builds or other environments with limited cooling capacity."
- http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...7-7700k-i7-7700-i5-7600k-i5-7600,4870-11.html
​

I guess the mid-tier i5-7600 model is the best you can get when you leave the "Maximum Performance" need out of the equation.
Too bad the Radeon Pro 580 can't be combined with the i5-7600 though.

 

[Moriarty]

Because due to the higher clock speeds and hyper threading the i7 heats up faster which makes the fans spin up faster and more frequent. Trust me though people are way overblowing this fan stuff with the iMac. It's not going to sound like a vacuum even at full 2700 rpm.

Indeed, the fan at 2700 rpm is much less annoying than a 15-inch rMBP at 6000 rpm. And it's basically inaudible at idle. Some people have unrealistic expectations...

It's difficult to get the fastest i5 to spin its fans to max under a real-world load. I don't think we can say the same for the i7. That's the consequence for picking the i7.

Which system to get depends on your workload, need for speed, and desire for a quiet system.

 

[iMi]

the i5 will be fine for now and if you look around at benchmarks there won't be a huge difference between and i5 and an i7 in the kind of tasks you are doing. There's one argument about having an i7 as the machine will potentially last you longer as you will benefit from the extra performance later on. I guess it depends on how long you intend to keep the machine. If 3 years or less, then go for the i5, if you plan to keep it for a long time then maybe go for the i7, but I'd be inclined to upgrade the GPU and the SSD before I did this. It's a real pain to upgrade the internal SSD, so I'd just go for the biggest I could afford. Same with the GPU, just get the best one.

Well, and that is the question. But will the i7 actually last longer given the higher heat output, especially if the French article is to be accurate? Microprocessors and excessive heat don't add up to long-term reliability. I know you meant "last longer" as in being more capable and not feeling sluggish down the road. This is a different kind of lasting.
[doublepost=1497963920][/doublepost]

Indeed, the fan at 2700 rpm is much less annoying than a 15-inch rMBP at 6000 rpm. And it's basically inaudible at idle. Some people have unrealistic expectations...

It's difficult to get the fastest i5 to spin its fans to max under a real-world load. I don't think we can say the same for the i7. That's the consequence for picking the i7.

Which system to get depends on your workload, need for speed, and desire for a quiet system.

Good point. We all know how some people become oversensitive to every little noise their brand new - and very expensive machine - makes. It may seem unusually loud because they are paying close attention.

 

[MistrSynistr]

I have a 2015 24gig ram i5 at home with SSD and a 2015 32gig i7 fusion drive at work and the i5 at home is faster.

 

[whatevs]

Well, and that is the question. But will the i7 actually last longer given the higher heat output, especially if the French article is to be accurate? Microprocessors and excessive heat don't add up to long-term reliability. I know you meant "last longer" as in being more capable and not feeling sluggish down the road.

Are there reported cases of Intel chips failing early due to heat in iMacs?

Considering how hot my C2D 2009 iMac runs any of the 2017 will be much more power efficient. I know GPUs have failed in the past (MBP 2011 models) but the CPUs?

 

[benz240]

I have a 2015 24gig ram i5 at home with SSD and a 2015 32gig i7 fusion drive at work and the i5 at home is faster.

I would bet that's mainly due to the difference in drives

 

[fathergll]

Hello iMi
The one thing I will say however is that I am sorry I never got an SSD. That is the weak link in my computer (fusion looks fast at first, but after 5 years not so much in comparison to SSD). Enjoy. By the way the lowest end 27" 2017 is now faster than my i7, crazy!

Same here. I have a 1 TB fusion with my '14 Retina iMac and no doubt it's quick for the most part but it is annoying if I am attempting to pull up large raw files from my DSLR. It's difficult building configuring computers for long term because it's a difficult balance between money and specs. It's easier if you are using a BTO option but if you want to save a lot of money you look for a sale from a prebuilt model at a place like b & h and now your saving both money on the computer and the tax which is substantial. I think it would have cost me something like $600 to not buy a 1TB Fusion from b&h and order a BTO iMac with a 256 SSD.

 

[iMi]

Are there reported cases of Intel chips failing early due to heat in iMacs?

Considering how hot my C2D 2009 iMac runs any of the 2017 will be much more power efficient. I know GPUs have failed in the past (MBP 2011 models) but the CPUs?

I don't know if there are report of failure, but there are reports of the chip hitting 100 degrees C when stressed. Intel lists 100C as the maximum temperature allowed. Will running the chip at the ceiling shorten its life? No idea.

There is only one other concern I have. If the 100C temps have been reported and that is the maximum allowed by the chip, then I suspect it's being throttled. If that's the case, what's the point of having a faster chip if the thermal conditions cause it to be dialed back?

On the other hand, would Apple release a product that isn't able to sufficiently cool the process inside? I doubt it. I don't think the French article describes ambient conditions. Maybe it was very hot in that room or they had a defective unit. Who knows.
[doublepost=1497969890][/doublepost]

Same here. I have a 1 TB fusion with my '14 Retina iMac and no doubt it's quick for the most part but it is annoying if I am attempting to pull up large raw files from my DSLR. It's difficult building configuring computers for long term because it's a difficult balance between money and specs. It's easier if you are using a BTO option but if you want to save a lot of money you look for a sale from a prebuilt model at a place like b & h and now your saving both money on the computer and the tax which is substantial. I think it would have cost me something like $600 to not buy a 1TB Fusion from b&h and order a BTO iMac with a 256 SSD.

I would consider the 2TB fusion as it has considerably larger SSD drive. The way I see it, most of the files I'll use daily will definitely fit on the SSD along with the OS. It's a good compromise for me. I need that extra space.

If Apple was more reasonable with their upgrade cost, I would have no doubt went for the 1TB SSD.

 

[jerwin]

This article has power consumption figures for Kaby Lake cpus. Lots of graphs of power consumption.

But they are testing their CPU in sane cases, not in thin all in ones.

 

[shaunp]

Well, and that is the question. But will the i7 actually last longer given the higher heat output, especially if the French article is to be accurate? Microprocessors and excessive heat don't add up to long-term reliability. I know you meant "last longer" as in being more capable and not feeling sluggish down the road. This is a different kind of lasting.
[doublepost=1497963920][/doublepost]

Good point. We all know how some people become oversensitive to every little noise their brand new - and very expensive machine - makes. It may seem unusually loud because they are paying close attention.

By 'last longer' I mean providing there are no hardware failures, the performance of the machine will meet your requirements for longer. Given that you aren't pushing it that hard I don't think overheating will be an issue even with an i7. It's only those who game or run tasks that are heavy on CPU for hours that may have an issue.

In all honesty I think the i5 will be fine for general stuff. You'd be better off spending the extra on a larger SSD as you will use this.

 

[c613m]

Here's a question for you guys. I'm looking at a new iMac 27", what machine would you recommend for streaming Plex 4K videos. My 2011 iMac can't handle the files.

 

[rico7578]

Well, and that is the question. But will the i7 actually last longer given the higher heat output, especially if the French article is to be accurate? Microprocessors and excessive heat don't add up to long-term reliability. I know you meant "last longer" as in being more capable and not feeling sluggish down the road. This is a different kind of lasting.

You got it !
Durability in time is not only to have the best performance possible now to be still usable in 5 years, but also quality components which last a long time, so not too much worn out by heat...
And if you consider the delta of performances between even an i7-7700K and and i5-7600, the gap is minimum... (some seconds in an export maybe... except very specific softwares maybe). But the delta in durability and silence seems more obvious !
The same between a Radeon 580 and 575... only few FPS of real difference.
So both machines will be obsolete in 5-10 years for sure, even the one equipped with the i7-7700K.

Indeed, the fan at 2700 rpm is much less annoying than a 15-inch rMBP at 6000 rpm. And it's basically inaudible at idle. Some people have unrealistic expectations...

For me one of the main reason to buy an imac (or Apple product more generally) is the silence (and also less cables, design... etc) compared to a PC !
If you want max performances and don't care about noise, cables, size, I would say PC are cheaper (just joking)
And it depends also where your imac will be ? For me it will be in the main room, so silence and design are essential.

 

[fruitpunch.ben]

I have a 2009 iMac with quad core i7 (see sig).

It has a Geekbench score of 2518.
I just use it for regular work (safari with 25 tabs open, Pages with 10 tabs open, 30 apps open in the background, etc.)
I do not do any video editing or photo editing or processor-demanding work.
I never have any CPU bottlenecks.

Hang-ups are due to RAM (I have 8GB which is enough 99% of the time) and especially the graphics card (it was underpowered when I bought it, unspeakably bad in 2017).
By FAR the best thing I ever did was install an SSD (and it is a million times slower than modern SSDs [SATA2 connection])

The base model iMac i5 has a Geekbench score of 4742.

I think you will be fine!

 

[whatevs]

You got it !
And if you consider the delta of performances between even an i7-7700K and and i5-7600, the gap is minimum... (some seconds in an export maybe... except very specific softwares maybe). But the delta in durability and silence seems more obvious !
The same between a Radeon 580 and 575... only few FPS of real difference.
So both machines will be obsolete in 5-10 years for sure, even the one equipped with the i7-7700K.

so is the middle tier model i5 considered the best balance of price-performance-heat-etc? I haven't seen any benchmarks of the 575 vs 580.

 

[thekev]

That said, I also process a lot of RAW photos in LR and PS. In LR, I still get a spinning beach ball for a few seconds when I switch back and forth between the library and develop modules. This isn't a huge deal, but it's irritating—especially since I bought the top-of-the-line model in 2014 and have a 512 GB SSD and 32 GB of RAM.

I never have this issue when editing the same RAW files on my 2016 Macbook Pro, and didn't have it on the 2013 Macbook Air that I had before I upgraded to the MBP. This suggests that the issue is the 5k screen on the iMac; as someone said earlier in this thread, that's a lot of pixels to drive.

I asked about it over on the Adobe forum, and the consensus there is that the CPU is to blame if I'm seeing a slow down when switching from library to develop. Some processes have been optimized to use the GPU in LR, but that isn't one of them.

Beachballs usually occur when you have to wait for some asynchronous process. You can have a cpu bound process running for a long period of time with no beachballs, but you will see them if your system is waiting on a response from a drive (even an ssd). I seriously doubt the screen is related in any way.

 

[iMi]

so is the middle tier model i5 considered the best balance of price-performance-heat-etc? I haven't seen any benchmarks of the 575 vs 580.

I don't think any of the models necessarily offer the best balance. The best balance is subjective and largely based on how you'll use the machine.

The CPU is clocked lower and will have lower heat signature. This will likely produce a lower overall noise. The graphics cards are all very similar and it looks like the clock speed is the main difference between them. The compute power is little bit more easily illustrated.

570 - 3.6 TFLOPS
575 - 4.5 TFLOPS
580 - 5.5 TFLOPS (some report 6.2)

I considered the same question you are asking. Ultimately the performance gains from the 580, double the storage (more importantly considerably larger SSD portion) and the higher clocked base processor present a much better overall value and therefore deliver better balance between cost and performance, in my opinion.

There are many ways to look at this, I guess. If you feel that the middle tier model offers the best balance for you, then that is the right model for you.
[doublepost=1497984949][/doublepost]

Here's a question for you guys. I'm looking at a new iMac 27", what machine would you recommend for streaming Plex 4K videos. My 2011 iMac can't handle the files.

Any model, even the base model, will handle this task just fine.