Nobody else find it comical entry-level 4K is now i3?

[Darajavahus]

No wonder that the company does such of things, can't believe that some people aren't paid to write what they are writing, it's not sane, it's just a company not a cult, why are these people behaving this way. OMG the thread starter cannot be more crystal clear and the responses he gets as if from religious freaks coz he offended their god. This kind of Apple followers makes me so strongly want to get rid of all of my apple products, feel so dirty using any of them after reading these people posts defending so blindly everything that Apple does, like they lack the ability of critical thinking.

 

[dcpmark]

Weird.....I thought the PC world is where you went for “value” in computers. Apple premiums have been a cost of doing business with Apple since the late 70s.

OP, have you considered trying out a PC?

 

[Darajavahus]

Weird.....I thought the PC world is where you went for “value” in computers. Apple premiums have been a cost of doing business with Apple since the late 70s.

OP, have you considered trying out a PC?

 

[dcpmark]

No wonder that the company does such of things, can't believe that some people aren't paid to write what they are writing, it's not sane, it's just a company not a cult, why are these people behaving this way. OMG the thread starter cannot be more crystal clear and the responses he gets as if from religious freaks coz he offended their god. This kind of Apple followers makes me so strongly want to get rid of all of my apple products, feel so dirty using any of them after reading these people posts defending so blindly everything that Apple does, like they lack the ability of critical thinking.

I think most people just don’t care, and find it hard to stomach outrage over something like as minor as this. It’s just a computer, and you can afford one, or not. Other companies make other computers that do pretty much the same thing and are much cheaper.....maybe you shouldn’t continue giving money to a company that makes you so angry?
[doublepost=1553123249][/doublepost]

View attachment 827408

Oh, I see the problem....you still live in 1993, the dark days of Apple.

 

[Darajavahus]

maybe you shouldn’t continue giving money to a company that makes you so angry?

It does not make me angry at all, why would it, the company actions makes me just feel grossed out and I feel sorry for these people with some weird kind of stockholm syndrome or cult-like behavior.

Oh, I see the problem....you still live in 1993, the dark days of Apple.

I wasn't born then yet.

 

[jerwin]

The mid-level 4k iMac has an i5-8500, not a i5-8400

The original post was clear: 1) The i3 is a lower class of chip, and not much of an upgrade over the i5-7400. 2) The price of the entry-level i5 4K has been jacked up by $250.

Seems some here don't want to acknowledge that the i3-8100 is not the successor to the i5-7400.
[doublepost=1553090069][/doublepost]

Nope. The i3-8100 is not the successor to the i5-7400. The successor to the i5-7400 is the i5-8400 (8500). This isn't up for debate, my friend.

i3-7100 -> i3-8100

i5-7400 -> i5-8400 (8500)

Intel makes this crystal clear. It's not complicated.

The complications lie in the fact that Apple hides this crystal clear information from users. You have to guess that a "2.5 Ghz 14 core Xeon" is actually a Xeon W-2175. Once you've made that guess, you can go looking for application specific benchmarks.

 

[curmudgeonette]

When Intel was starting to ship Coffee Lake, people figured out that the i3 was really just a relabeled Kaby Lake: It only supported the same slower DRAM as Kaby Lake. The processor revision level even matched Kaby Lake. I think the chip in question was the i3-8350K. Evidence suggests that it is just an i7-7700K configured with different turbo speed bins. And sold for less. (I don't know if anyone ever de-lidded a CPU and proved the use of a quad core die.)

Therefore...

In fact, the i3-8100 is actually *barely* any faster than the 2 year old i5-7400 found in the 2017 entry-level model it is replacing. The i5-8500 (or i5-8400) is the successor to the i5-7400 found in the 2017 entry-level 4K, not the i3-8100.

They replaced an i5 with an i3 and kept the price the same. They gimped the entry-level. The apples-to-apples entry-level i5 model got a $250 price hike. There’s no way around that.

... your real complaint should be that Apple took the CPU from the upgrade level 2017 and used it for the base level 2019: The i3-8100 is quite likely just an i5-7500 with fixed frequency turbo bins. Same 3.6GHz 4-core "turbo". Same 6MB L3. Same DDR4-2400. Same 1.1GHz GPU. Same 65W. Yes, the 8100's MSRP is much less, but I suspect that in Apple's volume, the price may be the same.

 

[Ethosik]

The. i3-8100. Is. Not. The. Successor. To. The. i5-7400.

For this generation, yes it is. i3 before was dual core. Now it is quad core and i5 became 6 cores and i7 became 6core 12 threads and i9 became 8 cores 16 threads.

2x the core count of a previous i3 to this generation i3 is a big difference.

i5 7400 has 4 cores 4 threads at 3.0Ghz.
i3 8100 has 4 cores and 4 threads at 3.6Ghz

So this generation i3 is better than last generation's i5. It is a successor. Stop treating i3s as if they are still dual cores. Intel finally got off their butt and did a massive improvement across their ENTIRE LINE. I can FINALLY get a decent i7 with 6 cores at a reasonable price.

 

[curmudgeonette]

When Intel was starting to ship Coffee Lake, people figured out that the i3 was really just a relabeled Kaby Lake: It only supported the same slower DRAM as Kaby Lake. The processor revision level even matched Kaby Lake. I think the chip in question was the i3-8350K.

Finally found the message threads (elsewhere) where this was discussed: The key clue is a B0 stepping level for the early Coffee Lake quad cores. Kaby Lake is also B0. Meanwhile hex core Coffee Lake's are U0. Thus i3-8350K is a rebadged i5-7600K; and i3-8100 is a rebadged i5-7500.

 

[BenTrovato]

For this generation, yes it is. i3 before was dual core. Now it is quad core and i5 became 6 cores and i7 became 6core 12 threads and i9 became 8 cores 16 threads.

2x the core count of a previous i3 to this generation i3 is a big difference.

i5 7400 has 4 cores 4 threads at 3.0Ghz.
i3 8100 has 4 cores and 4 threads at 3.6Ghz

So this generation i3 is better than last generation's i5. It is a successor. Stop treating i3s as if they are still dual cores. Intel finally got off their butt and did a massive improvement across their ENTIRE LINE. I can FINALLY get a decent i7 with 6 cores at a reasonable price.

I think this was said on page 1 but was never fully acknowledged. I like how committed OP is to the topic... mainly because I agree about Apples price gouging. Although with the new i3’s being quad core chips, I have to agree, they are in a way a successor to the i5’s. Just interested in what OP has to say about that.

 

[smbu2000]

Perhaps the Intel CPU shortages have caused Apple to switch over to the i3 for the base model.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-cpu-shortage-chromebooks/

"Intel has experienced shortages of its most popular CPUs since August 2018, with low numbers of Core i5, Pentium, and Atom CPUs having the greatest impact on availability of devices."

"Those shortages have continued throughout 2019 so far, with the lack of Core i5 options leading to greater demand for Intel’s own Core i3 chips, and some AMD alternatives."

 

[jerwin]

So this generation i3 is better than last generation's i5. It is a successor

no turboboost.
[doublepost=1553149111][/doublepost]I suppose this counts as marginally disappointing if you had the money saved up for a 1299 imac, but held off because you thought that hex cores were in the offing.Or if you were a student, with a firm budget. (The mac mini's price hike should have been a clue...)

In terms of year on year advances in chip technology the move to more cores is like the return of the old days, when Moore's law meant better, faster, cheaper chips every 18 months.

 

[strawbale]

As several others have tried to point out to you in this thread, you are wrong. Respectfully, it seems you are out of your depth on this topic. So I'll be kind and try to hammer it home to you one last time:

The. i3-8100. Is. Not. The. Successor. To. The. i5-7400.

And there have been no changes to Intel's processor naming policy. The i3 is still the i3 and the i5 is still the i5. Zero changes. This isn't difficult. Apple stuck a less powerful class of chip (which is also cheaper) into the entry-level 4K iMac and decided to charge the same. Typical Apple price gouging.

Lastly, the entry-level Mini wasn't updated for 4 years and switched from a 15 W mobile processor to a 65 W desktop processor. It is a ridiculous comparison and shows a lack of understanding of Intel's chips.

Bold doesn't make you more convincing nor right - never does.
You can't have it both ways: if you believe your on own 'logic' (e.g. "The i3 is still the i3 and the i5 is still the i5") than there's no logically reason not to apply that to the Mac Mini upgrade.
It's a very common refresh strategy for Apple (which one may not like - I don't either).
[doublepost=1553153794][/doublepost]

Finally found the message threads (elsewhere) where this was discussed: The key clue is a B0 stepping level for the early Coffee Lake quad cores. Kaby Lake is also B0. Meanwhile hex core Coffee Lake's are U0. Thus i3-8350K is a rebadged i5-7600K; and i3-8100 is a rebadged i5-7500.

That will please the OP - he prefers (it to be) an i5.

 

[otternonsense]

Just shows how much Tim & co care about the Mac.

 

[throAU]

You know i3/i5/i7/i9 are just marketing terms? The i3-8100 is actually a really strong chip.

It's the HDD that is the bottleneck.

No, it isn't a really strong chip at all. Time moves on, vs. anything else in intel's current desktop lineup it is entry level and vs. something from AMD unless you're running single threaded tasks, it is a joke.

Sure. it's faster than last year. So is everything else on the market.

 

[jerwin]

anything else in intel's current desktop lineup it is entry level

Intel still sells celerons. 2 cores. 2 threads. no turboboost. not a lot of cache.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...eleron-g4920-processor-2m-cache-3-20-ghz.html

 

[tomscott1988]

Yeah, and the i9-9900K at the high-end is faster than the Xeon W 10-core in the iMac Pro and $2000 cheaper, lol.

It might be if it didnt have the pi$$ poor cooling of the 2017 iMac if it struggled with the 7700k then the 9900k is probably not going to perform well either or sound like a plane most of the time.

Like the macbook pro it probably wont give you any advantage because the thermal capacity doesn't match. It will still cost you another 15% tho...

 

[macduke]

It might be if it didnt have the pi$$ poor cooling of the 2017 iMac if it struggled with the 7700k then the 9900k is probably not going to perform well either or sound like a plane most of the time.

Like the macbook pro it probably wont give you any advantage because the thermal capacity doesn't match. It will still cost you another 15% tho...

I had the 7700K in my mid-2017 iMac at work before I switched jobs and it was louder than my 2012 iMac under load but it wasn't bad. I am used to using big PC towers back in the day and know what real noise is. The TDP on the 7700K was like 91 or 92W and the 9900K is 95W so it shouldn't be a significant difference, but a difference nonetheless. I'm hoping they have included larger heatsinks, better thermal compound, and/or higher CFM fans to improve cooling.

 

[laptech]

this is how that badge should actually look like

 

[Spectrum]

The TDP on the 7700K was like 91 or 92W and the 9900K is 95W so it shouldn't be a significant difference, but a difference nonetheless. I'm hoping they have included larger heatsinks, better thermal compound, and/or higher CFM fans to improve cooling.

The power used for 9th gen chips is at least 2x the TDP when using all-core max turbo. This has been demonstrated on a few websites already. To handle this power/heat needs serious cooling solutions.

For the i7 mac mini (TDP=65W), it spikes at 100W briefly for all core turbo (around 4.3Ghz), then drops down due thermals and stabilises around 3.8 Ghz (which is below max for this chip, but still above the TDP rating of 3.2 Ghz)

For the i9-9900K, TDP of 95W will likely only be good for an 8-core speed of around 4 Ghz.
Overall, I expect multicore rendering tasks to be about 1.5x faster on the 8-core i9 as on the 6-core mac mini i7.
Single core tasks will be almost identical (4.6 Ghz turbo vs 5.0 Ghz turbo = 1.1x faster).

Proof will be Intel Power Gadget when we have this machine in users hands.

 

[macduke]

The power used for 9th gen chips is at least 2x the TDP when using all-core max turbo. This has been demonstrated on a few websites already. To handle this power/heat needs serious cooling solutions.

For the i7 mac mini (TDP=65W), it spikes at 100W briefly for all core turbo (around 4.3Ghz), then drops down due thermals and stabilises around 3.8 Ghz (which is below max for this chip, but still above the TDP rating of 3.2 Ghz)

For the i9-9900K, TDP of 95W will likely only be good for an 8-core speed of around 4 Ghz.
Overall, I expect multicore rendering tasks to be about 1.5x faster on the 8-core i9 as on the 6-core mac mini i7.
Single core tasks will be almost identical (4.6 Ghz turbo vs 5.0 Ghz turbo = 1.1x faster).

Proof will be Intel Power Gadget when we have this machine in users hands.

One thing to consider (that I just found out about) is the 9th gen chips are soldered instead of thermal compound so they will dissipate heat through the heatsink more efficiently. Hopefully they make some other tweaks as I mentioned earlier.

 

[Spectrum]

I think the new core i3 will be slightly faster than the outgoing base i5 model. Technically it is an upgrade in raw performance...but I think Apple could have reduced the price a little to compensate for the cheaper CPU price.

Or upgrading to Fusion across the line for example would have cost almost nothing and provided a noticeable performance boost for most people.
[doublepost=1553249512][/doublepost]To put this in perspective, the new 4K imacs are basically identical to the 2018 mac mini for CPU (and will probably perform a bit better due to thermals). This suggests one can expect the following for base, mid, and i7 upgrade:

Compare this to the outgoing 4K iMac:
Single core iMac 2017:

Multicore iMac 2017:

In every comparison, the new lineup is likely to be faster. Although, I do agree that the potential increase for the base model is modest (~5% for Single-core and 10% for MultiCore).
By contrast, the mid and top models are likely to be approx ~10% better SC, and 50% better MC due to the additional cores.

 

[smetvid]

Don’t get hung up on what class the i3 is compared to the i5. The OP is thinking of a computer in CPU spec terms and not as an entry level computer.

Entry level means just that and to Apple the i3 finally performs well enough to use it for entry level. Previous models had to start with the i5 because that was the best they could do without hobbling the computer too much.

Apple doesn’t need to follow a path to move to the next i5 CPU if they feel the i3 now fits for what they define as an entry level iMac, Apple views computers as a lot more than just CPU spec and more about machines to get stuff done. To them the i3 represented a CPU that can still get as much stuff done as the previous i5 all while costing less and generating less heat/noise.

I honestly don’t see the problem here. The entry level price is still the same entry level price. If one insists on having a i5 CPU as if it means something special then they need to pay more.

The i5 also moved from 4 cores to 6 cores while the i3 is 4 cores which is likely what Apple considers to be acceptable for this level of iMac. If the i3 performs the same or slightly faster than the previous i5 then it’s still an upgrade. Sometimes these model refreshes are also about phasing out older CPUs that are harder to keep in stock and eventually would become too difficult/expensive to order them in bulk.

 

[theluggage]

Bold doesn't make you more convincing nor right - never does.

I think the problem here is that "successor" means whatever the person arguing wants it to mean.

The other problem is that the i3/i5/i7 denomination is branding not specification and represents price-point and intended market segment, not absolute performance. Its also a highly unsatisfactory, dumbed-down system that totally fails to communicate the half-dozen or so variables that determine the processor's performance - like most modern marketing, a cynic might think that it was deliberately designed to make it hard for customers to objectively compare products.

So, in terms of intended market position and price point the "successor" to the i5-7400 is the i5-8400 because that's why Intel stuck that label on. In terms of absolute performance - well, looks like the i3-8100 might even be an i5-7400 (in an industry where the only difference between a 3GHz part and a 4GHz part may well be that the latter has been tested at the higher frequency).

Really, i3/i5/i7 is no different to "standard/premium/pro" - and the complaint is that, with the 8th generation processors, Intel started offering 6 cores instead of 4 at the "premium" price point but, instead of passing that improvement on, Apple decided to downgrade from a "premium" to a "standard" processor and pocket the savings. This is technology, not the price of a loaf or bread. Technology advances, and after two years it is entirely reasonable to expect significantly better specs - such as more/faster cores - for the same price.

than there's no logically reason not to apply that to the Mac Mini upgrade.

Yes there is and its already been explained to you. Its never been valid to use i-number branding to compare low-power mobile and desktop chips. The iMac could have had the i5-8400 as a straightforward (maybe even drop-in) replacement for the i5-7400. The innards of the new Mac Mini have been changed beyond recognition to accommodate desktop-class processors - different socket, different power, different cooling.

Still, It is entirely arguable that - in branding/price point terms - that even the entry-level New Mac Mini is not a cheap computer and it should come with a "premium" (relative to today's range) i5 processor, not an i3.

Its equally true that the new entry-level i3 Mini substantially out-performs the top-end 2014 model - but that's because (a) its a 65W desktop processor vs. a 25W mobile processor and (b) 4 years have passed and processors have more, and faster, cores for the same price.

By your argument, Apple should have put a 2-core Celeron or similar in the new mini, as that would quite likely be just a little bit better than a 4-year-old i5. I don't think that would have gone down very well unless they had also slashed the price.

 

[redheeler]

Entry level means just that and to Apple the i3 finally performs well enough to use it for entry level. Previous models had to start with the i5 because that was the best they could do without hobbling the computer too much.

You could make this argument for last year's models, and ones prior as well; dual-core was adequate at the entry level for a long time, and certainly in 2011 or 2012.

Yet Apple never used a dual-core or i3 processor from 2011-2017, other than for the $999 or $1,099 budget / education model, which the entry-level 4K iMac is not.