Please review your 2017 iMac

[EugW]

Geekbench is doing specific test and isn't hammering all the cores of a CPU. It couldn't even get the temps of my iMac to reach what I see in normal day to day task.

Green is real time actual temp, line is max since boot.
View attachment 706484
(click to enlarge)

I'm not familiar with that player but even software decoding h264 isn't terribly difficult.

I'm not aware of a stress test for Macs however if you download Handbrake, open that video you made with the iPhone, set the preset slider to placebo and click start it will transcode it.

You'll get something like this in a minute or so, much higher if the video is long enough.
View attachment 706486
(click to enlarge)

That is the max my iMac will see (note the fan) but since its a 2013 i5 its going to be dramatically slower than yours of course (up to 50%). Which is my problem with iMacs, if you need the power prepare for fan noise. If you don't need the power its not a problem but that begs the question of why buy it in the first place right?

I was not suggesting hardware h.264 decode was heavy usage. I was actually saying light busines usage + video watching didn't turn the fan up for the 7700K. Also, I gave the example of Geekbench not as an example of truly heavy usage, but just to say that even somewhat heavier usage but not high usage for a couple minutes wouldn't necessarily ramp up the fan either. (I've been told that Geekbench puts a short pause between tests which may be enough to prevent the CPU from heating up more.)

For me it's moot though, since I've already returned the 7700K. I could get the fan to spin up with occasional heavy usage in stuff like Photos, and of course video encoding/transcoding. Even exporting a short iPhone video in Photos would ramp up the fan. 98% of the time the 7700K was quiet for the way I used it, and even for the remaining 2%, some of that time it wouldn't matter to me, but sometimes it might, and honestly I don't really have to have that extra speed for the occasional times times I might use it. I was thinking say for video and image exports on this computer, which is on my workdesk, would be annoying if I had to sit and listen to it for 10 minutes while I did paperwork at the desk. Going for the 7600 will mean the machine will stay quiet much more of the time.

What sold me was was a poster here saying he could transcode 4K video for hours at a time with the iMac i5-7500 staying completely silent, and the fan stuck at 1200. I didn't choose the 7500, but went with the 7600, just because it has a bit more CPU and a bit more GPU while staying in the lower tier of power utilization, for not much more money. The 7500 with 575 seemed like a decent compromise. Much cooler than the 7700K and significantly cooler than the 7600K, but with some more compute power and reserve than the 7500.

 

[cynics]

The PCIe SSDs I've seen reviewed run at about 50-75% of the power of traditional 7200 rpm drives.

This is completely true (well I don't know the exact percentages but whatever), SSDs have better watt/gb transfer performance. I am not arguing that at all. Its a common knowledge battery saving technique for laptops to put in a SSD in place of an HDD.

However during their full load SSDs consume much more power but get better watt/gb performance because they transfer files exponentially faster.

Not sure if that makes sense. For example an SSD has better watt/gb performance if it uses 5x the amount of power during a transfer if its transfers the file 10x faster. During its transfer though its using 5x the amount of power and producing A LOT more heat.
[doublepost=1498782795][/doublepost]

I was not suggesting hardware h.264 decode was heavy usage. I was actually saying light busines usage + video watching didn't turn the fan up for the 7700K. Also, I gave the example of Geekbench not as an example of truly heavy usage, but just to say that even somewhat heavier usage but not high usage for a couple minutes wouldn't necessarily ramp up the fan either. (I've been told that Geekbench puts a short pause between tests which may be enough to prevent the CPU from heating up more.)

For me it's moot though, since I've already returned the 7700K. I could get the fan to spin up with occasional heavy usage in stuff like Photos, and of course video encoding/transcoding. Even exporting a short iPhone video in Photos would ramp up the fan. 98% of the time the 7700K was quiet for the way I used it, and even for the remaining 2%, some of that time it wouldn't matter to me, but sometimes it might, and honestly I don't really have to have that extra speed for the occasional times times I might use it. I was thinking say for video and image exports on this computer, which is on my workdesk, would be annoying if I had to sit and listen to it for 10 minutes while I did paperwork at the desk. Going for the 7600 will mean the machine will stay quiet much more of the time.

What sold me was was a poster here saying he could transcode 4K video for hours at a time with the iMac i5-7500 staying completely silent, and the fan stuck at 1200. I didn't choose the 7500, but went with the 7600, just because it has a bit more CPU and a bit more GPU while staying in the lower tier of power utilization, for not much more money. The 7500 with 575 seemed like a decent compromise. Much cooler than the 7700K and significantly cooler than the 7600K, but with some more compute power and reserve than the 7500.

Ah I gotcha. I'm kind of skimming the thread, I apologize.

I can also transcode for hours without seeing rise off 1200 RPM with my 2013 iMac i5 4670. Unfortunately it would appear transcode on this machine take 50% longer vs the 7700K. I've just been spoiled rotten by a Mac that is quiet 24/7 and only when I max out the GPU 775m can I get the fan to go up a little.

Have you found people saying the 7600K is a problem with fan? I was kind of eyeing that up for my next purchase.

 

[EugW]

This is completely true (well I don't know the exact percentages but whatever), SSDs have better watt/gb transfer performance. I am not arguing that at all. Its a common knowledge battery saving technique for laptops to put in a SSD in place of an HDD.

However during their full load SSDs consume much more power but get better watt/gb performance because they transfer files exponentially faster.

Not sure if that makes sense. For example an SSD has better watt/gb performance if it uses 5x the amount of power during a transfer if its transfers the file 10x faster. During its transfer though its using 5x the amount of power and producing A LOT more heat.

Actually, the ballpark number I listed was the full load power of modern PCIe SSDs. Mind you some of those are not as fast as the most recent Mac SSDs, so it is possible the Mac SSDs run hotter.

OTOH, at idle, you often measure SSDs in milliWatts, not Watts.

Ah I gotcha. I'm kind of skimming the thread, I apologize.

I can also transcode for hours without seeing rise off 1200 RPM with my 2013 iMac i5 4670. Unfortunately it would appear transcode on this machine take 50% longer vs the 7700K. I've just been spoiled rotten by a Mac that is quiet 24/7 and only when I max out the GPU 775m can I get the fan to go up a little.

Have you found people saying the 7600K is a problem with fan? I was kind of eyeing that up for my next purchase.

Not enough testing yet on the 7600K. I didn't want to risk it though since:

1) It's noted in some tests on the PC side to be hotter than the 7600, which isn't surprising since it's a 91 Watt TDP chip. Then again, some tests suggest the 7600K is a lot closer to the 7600's power than it is to the 7700K's power, despite the TDP classifications.

2) The performance over the 7600 doesn't seem all that remarkable.

I don't really see a huge benefit for the 7600K in a Mac, since you can't overclock it, and the 7600K is an overclocking chip. It has a 300 MHz higher base clock over the 7600, but its Turbo Boost speeds are only 100 MHz higher than the 7600's, for single-core, dual-core, and quad-core.

 

[Floris]

After a while, using it daily, no regrets buying it.

 

[cynics]

Actually, the ballpark number I listed was the full load power of modern PCIe SSDs. Mind you some of those are not as fast as the most recent Mac SSDs, so it is possible the Mac SSDs run hotter.

OTOH, at idle, you often measure SSDs in milliWatts, not Watts.


Not enough testing yet on the 7600K. I didn't want to risk it though since:

1) It's noted in some tests on the PC side to be hotter than the 7600, which isn't surprising since it's a 91 Watt TDP chip. Then again, some tests suggest the 7600K is a lot closer to the 7600's power than it is to the 7700K's power, despite the TDP classifications.

2) The performance over the 7600 doesn't seem all that remarkable.

I don't really see a huge benefit for the 7600K in a Mac, since you can't overclock it, and the 7600K is an overclocking chip. It has a 300 MHz higher base clock over the 7600, but its Turbo Boost speeds are only 100 MHz higher than the 7600's, for single-core, dual-core, and quad-core.

It will depend on the drives being compared. If we compare a higher end PCIe SSD like found in an iMac like the Samsung 960 Pro it uses slightly more power then an average HDD like found in an iMac like the WD Caviar Blue. But this goes all over the place because the Intel 750 (Page 10 Table 7) it can be as high as 22w. But like for like I can only assume the volume, or lack thereof with the PCIe SSD blades will account for while they are capable of getting so hot.

I'm always weary of Intels CPU TDP rating since it can seem a bit arbitrary. Both the 7600K and 7700K have 91w TDP. However....typo on the thermal cooling specifications? Same as the 7600. The 7600K isn't shipped with a cooler so its weird.

 

[richinaus]

After a while, using it daily, no regrets buying it.

I agree - it is a great computer. no regrets either.

 

[macryan1]

Received mine today. 27", i7 4.2, Radeon Pro 580 with 512 SSD.
First impressions: gorgeous display, blistering fast, SSD is clocking over 2GB/sec. My only gripe thus far is the constant fan noise - can be heard across the room on idle, and only gets louder under load. Whilst, my 2012 iMac is virtually silent unless being pushed. Not sure if I'll be returning it or not...

27" i5, 580, 2TB Fusion...no fan noise....it's odd that some have such intrusive fan noise and others don't. I agree that having a wind tunnel on your desktop is nasty...but I just do not experience that. Running GarageBand, flight sim ( that is taxing on cpu & gpu) occasionally design software, etc.

 

[Polmac]

27" i5, 580, 2TB Fusion...no fan noise....it's odd that some have such intrusive fan noise and others don't. I agree that having a wind tunnel on your desktop is nasty...but I just do not experience that. Running GarageBand, flight sim ( that is taxing on cpu & gpu) occasionally design software, etc.

It seems the noise issue only happens with i7 processors.

 

[EugW]

This is completely true (well I don't know the exact percentages but whatever), SSDs have better watt/gb transfer performance. I am not arguing that at all. Its a common knowledge battery saving technique for laptops to put in a SSD in place of an HDD.

However during their full load SSDs consume much more power but get better watt/gb performance because they transfer files exponentially faster.

Not sure if that makes sense. For example an SSD has better watt/gb performance if it uses 5x the amount of power during a transfer if its transfers the file 10x faster. During its transfer though its using 5x the amount of power and producing A LOT more heat.

We agree, but it's even worse than that if you're bringing stuff like this into the equation.

Typical read-write power utilization for the Samsung 960 Pro PCIe SSD is 4-6 W, but the idle is around 0.1 W. If you look at active idle it's closer to 1.2 W. In contrast, some of the media-production oriented 7200 rpm drives use 6-9 Watts for read/write, but idle at 5-8 Watts. It will be lower for cheaper 5400 rpm drive, but they're still generally 3 Watts and up at idle, and much higher for read/write

Given that 98% of an SSD's time is at idle, it can be almost an order of magnitude difference overall in power utilization.

 

[jpross123]

I have owned the 2017 27' iMac for about a week now. I was worried it wasnt going to be as powerful as my 2015 15' MBP with a 2.5ghz i7.

Upon receiving the iMac, I did a geekbench score, and it was a shocker when the score was higher than my MBP I had previously. The whole reason I switched to the iMac was because I got tired of editing my photos on a 15' screen. The 27' is much better for that. Lets break down the iMac in pieces shall we:

Screen: If you have seen any retina screen in the past couple years, you know how well they look, and with the new iMac, it is no exception. The colors are vibrant, and the screen is super sharp. As for the brightness, it might be a little brighter than the previous generation, but, I rarely have my screen brightness that high to begin with.
One thing I did notice was the decrease in screen reflection. I have it in a room that receives a lot of sunlight, and the reflection is way down from the 2014 model I used to own.

Performance: These new Kaby Lake processors that are in the iMacs are beasts. Like I said previously, the geekbench scores on this 3.5ghz i5 processor was slightly better than my 2.5ghz i7 I had in my MBP. I mostly use my iMac for photo editing in Lightroom and Photoshop. I have these open at the same time with no issue whatsoever! I don't even hear the fans kick on while using these 2 programs simultaneously, and I did all the time with my MBP.

I have edited a video in FCPX, and it did handle that like a champ as well! I don't do a whole lot of video editing, so I can't speak for that.

SSD: Apple says the new SSD is faster than the previous generation, and honestly the SSD was already fast on my MBP, and the one on the iMac seems about the same as my MBP. It transfers files from my external hard drive a little faster, but nothing to run home about. I do highly recommend spending the extra cash and getting a SSD vs. the fusion drive. When exporting photos (and im sure video) it makes a huge difference.

Ram: The 8gb of ram that it comes with (which is a little rediculous on a $2300 machine) is good enough for my needs at this time. I plan on upgrading to 16gb eventually, just in case. It might make things run a little smoother.

Here is the geekbench score for anyone that is interested

 

[Packers1958]

I have had my 27 inch 3.4ghz i5, 512SSD for a few days now and it is so much faster than my 2011 i5. Boot up time takes seconds compared to minutes with the 2011 model. Everything is so much smoother. Ran the geekbench test FWIW.

 

[c613m]

Model I am reviewing:

Base 27" Core i5 3.4Ghz (Kaby Lake), 24GB's of RAM, AMD Radeon Pro 570, 512 SSD.

Upon first glance, coming from a custom 2011 21.5" iMac w/ SSD, the screen and sheer size was something truly magnificent to behold. Set up was a breeze, connecting my 10TB's of External Storage via USB 3 was a noticeable change from my USB 2 days on the previous iMac. The speed difference in transferring files makes the jump to this model worthwhile.

Today I ventured into the world on Steam (I'm a gamer), and downloaded one of my favourite games (Rocket League). To my surprise it looks absolutely gorgeous. I had to tone done the depth of field setting as it was causing a few issues running at 1440p. But after that, truely gorgeous, I still prefer to game on my PS4 Pro and 65" Samsung KS8000 though. But this was more of a test of can it do it. Although it's good, it's not perfect playing games, it does struggle a bit at the Ultra Settings. But to my surprise, after playing for an hour, I turned off, steam and went to monitor temps and such, and during that whole session, the fan only went up to 1300RPM and was still dead silent.

Great machine, and happy I made the move. My only regret is maybe not going for the mid-level one for occasional gaming, but alas, this is a little silly as I'm a console gamer at heart and this does everything I need it to do.

 

[user1234]

Coming from a 2011 27 inch, I couldn't be more pleased. Home user...not pro...running GarageBand, X-Plane....creating some web content.....some Photoshop...some Indesign....everything is silky smooth...whisper quiet and lightening fast ....just what I wanted. At this point zero complaints.

Transition was seamless....looking forward to High Sierra

i5, 580, 16GB RAM.

How is X-Plane performing on the i5? Are you running X-Plane 11? It only uses one core right now so I'm a bit concerned about performance. They are working on multi core and metal though which should be awesome!

 

[Falcon80]

Just ordered the 27" i5 3.5ghz, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD, 575 Graphics and the new numerical keyboard.

Expected delivery is 26/07/2017 - 02/08/2017.

Thank you everyone for helping me make the decision.

I will leave a review here after I receive it from a software developer's point of view.

 

[fitshaced]

Just got the 27" 3.8 8GB 2TB Fusion. Really big improvement from the 2012 iMac, especially on the screen. I just did a quick test on editing in Final Cut with a short 4k clip and applied noise reduction. Something that would have taken at least an hour to do on the older iMac (along with serious fan noise) took about 20 minutes on the new iMac with no unusual fan noise. That makes a big difference.

As I'm waiting for delivery on new ram (16GB crucial), I feel a bit limited on what I can do with it right now as I really need to close all apps when running final cut or paying attention to the number of safari tabs I have open.

Not liking this new keyboard. I'm making loads of typos typing this.

 

[macryan1]

How is X-Plane performing on the i5? Are you running X-Plane 11? It only uses one core right now so I'm a bit concerned about performance. They are working on multi core and metal though which should be awesome!

X-plane 11 is a resource beast...that being said I have all my sliders at Maximum or higher...yes there is one more notch.. except for anti-ailising....which is not needed at this pixel resolution. With those settings I get mid 20s to low 30s in most areas....I can finally fly over Boston without it becoming slide show. It does use 7GB of VRAM at these settings so the 580 is well utilized. I could cut back very little and be in the 50s and 60s fps with no problem....but I like the candy. Very pleased. BTW no fan noise...still runs in mid 1200s.

 

[Glideslope]

X-plane 11 is a resource beast...that being said I have all my sliders at Maximum or higher...yes there is one more notch.. except for anti-ailising....which is not needed at this pixel resolution. With those settings I get mid 20s to low 30s in most areas....I can finally fly over Boston without it becoming slide show. It does use 7GB of VRAM at these settings so the 580 is well utilized. I could cut back very little and be in the 50s and 60s fps with no problem....but I like the candy. Very pleased. BTW no fan noise...still runs in mid 1200s.

Nice. 30fps in X-Plane 11 at those setting is no easy task. is 30fps inside in 3D view? What is the fps when you go to external view?

 

[jpross123]

Not liking this new keyboard. I'm making loads of typos typing this.

Are you talking about the one with the numeric keypad? If so, I am doing the same thing, lol.

 

[EugW]

I think the new numeric keypad is very good. Nicer feel than the one on even the revised 2017 MacBook, since it has more travel but the same solid click. Keys are more stable than the old style flat keys. The firmness may be a tad more on the old style keyboards and the old one may have more travel, but I like the keyclick feel of the new one better.

Ideal would be the new keyboard's click feel but with the travel and firmness of the old one, but we didn't get that.

 

[jpross123]

For some reason the keyboard is throwing me off. I will get used to it eventually, lol.

 

[Dksiazek]

Well, my BTO top end spec with 512MB SSD came with a crack in the screen. It has been a complete pain to get a replacement in a reasonable amount of time as current order times are in the 4 week range... We'll see what happens.

 

[JonOlafson]

Is it normal that when turning an iMac on you have to click the Trackpad and Keyboard several times bevore they are recognized by the iMac and you can enter your password?
Also the Trackpad sometimes does not respond like when scrolling through Safari.

 

[Glideslope]

Just got the 27" 3.8 8GB 2TB Fusion. Really big improvement from the 2012 iMac, especially on the screen. I just did a quick test on editing in Final Cut with a short 4k clip and applied noise reduction. Something that would have taken at least an hour to do on the older iMac (along with serious fan noise) took about 20 minutes on the new iMac with no unusual fan noise. That makes a big difference.

As I'm waiting for delivery on new ram (16GB crucial), I feel a bit limited on what I can do with it right now as I really need to close all apps when running final cut or paying attention to the number of safari tabs I have open.

Not liking this new keyboard. I'm making loads of typos typing this.

Gonna be 3-4 more weeks on the Crucial. It's worth the wait though.

 

[fitshaced]

Gonna be 3-4 more weeks on the Crucial. It's worth the wait though.

I'll have it this week actually. But, had to order another 16 as I didn't realise that i ordered 1 module of 16 and not two eights. So, going to have a total of 40GB instead.

 

[mollyc]

Is Crucial considerably better than OWC? I have OWC memory in my current 2012 iMac.