When are 6 cores better than 4 cores for home, non-pro use?

[pl1984]

Mac hardware tends toward being more tightly integrated. This means fewer options --- which can stink for the user -- but its easier to support a limited number of hardware configurations.

Completely irrelevant to reliability.

I had an 11 year old Hewlett Packard PC. BIOS updates for the motherboard were nowhere to be found. The HP website offered no driver support and tried to sell me another PC.

How does this support your statement?

A Windows 10 update broke compatibility with the sound drivers.

OS X Mountain Lion broke compatibility with my 1,1 Mac Pro. OS X Sierra broke compatibility with my 3,1 Mac Pro. Ironically I can run Windows 10 on both of these systems.

My 2012 mini keeps running without any problems.

And my 2007 PC, running Windows 10 1809, keeps running without any problems.
[doublepost=1543797668][/doublepost]

That is just wrong - PC’s get so buggy and loaded down with crappy “free” software and invaded by every bug - and that doesn’t include bad Microsoft OS upgrades - I use PC’s as well - I have both. You are an anomaly at 11 years, not the norm.

11 years might be an anomaly merely because PCs don't cost as much so people don't have an issue with upgrading to new ones every few years.

Having said that your point has no bearing on whether PCs last.

 

[trifid]

I think 6 cores is overkill unless you have a very specific use case like video export/transcode that you do periodically.

I used to use handbrake in the past but rarely use it nowadays, so I really can't come up with any home use case where you need 6 cores to justify the upgrade.

The fact is only few apps are really optimized to take advantage of 6 cores really well, most apps aren't. I would say the most important metric for general home use is single core benchmarks, take a look here for a general idea of performance across different macs:

https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks

And by the way, I speak from real world experience, having owned a Mac Pro 2013 which was a multi-core beast, there were many things in general use that didn't feel that "snappy" as other modern macs, and part of the reason is that single-core benchmarks speeds sucked.

 

[archer75]

That is just wrong - PC’s get so buggy and loaded down with crappy “free” software and invaded by every bug - and that doesn’t include bad Microsoft OS upgrades - I use PC’s as well - I have both. You are an anomaly at 11 years, not the norm.

I would say you are wrong. PC's are just fine. If it's getting buggy and loaded down with crappy software it's because you've installed it. My Mac is no more stable than my PC. And I have tons of PC parts here. I've been building computers for decades.

 

[dmsea1]

I would say you are wrong. PC's are just fine. If it's getting buggy and loaded down with crappy software it's because you've installed it. My Mac is no more stable than my PC. And I have tons of PC parts here. I've been building computers for decades.

I have bought 3 PC's during the time I had one iMac - Have had to replace too many work computers to even count. Of course PC's are fine - I prefer them for some uses. The issue with buggy software isn't because I installed it, it is because PC's get subsidized with pre-installed junk - HP, Dell, etc - are cheap because you become the product. If you can build your own, that is the best route to go, but that is a small percentage of people. And the integration absolutely makes Mac's much more stable and reliable over a long period of time for the average person - that is part of their premium. Apple makes mistakes and buggy software, but usually fix those issues much faster, and for free.

 

[Chiromac81]

I don't know anything about Plex - how does it work? Is it an app that I'm supposed to have on both my Mac and on the Apple TV 4K?

Right now, if I d/l a torrent or something like that, I use SmartConverter to convert it play on Apple TV (I don't even try to play it first through the Apple TV - I just go ahead and convert it). It then adds the converted copy to my iTunes library at which time I can stream it to the Apple TV 4K.

This is what I do as well-is this a cumbersome and less efficient way to download and watch movies?? If it is let me know as I have a rather pricey 4K tv (Sony 75Z9D) and expensive Dolby Atmos setup but need to make sure I’m doing things properly to get the content to it from PC. I notice when I convert some MKV or AVI files through smart converter to go to iTunes then 4K Apple TV it makes the file smaller. I’m probably losing audio or video resolution doing this then using PLEX or Infuse??
[doublepost=1543805032][/doublepost]

Plex is for all your local content. Give it a shot, it's free so why not? I don't bother with iTunes.
[doublepost=1543768399][/doublepost]
You don't bother with conversions with Plex. It can play anything as it can transcode whatever is not supported natively by the client. This is where a powerful CPU comes in. If transcoding is needed. This allows you to play content on any platform anywhere and it will work. I primarily use Plex on the ATV4k. Sometimes I use infuse. And sometimes I stream to my shield or oppo.
Coupled with Sonarr it will auto download your shows and drop them in to Plex media server, automatically. You sit down to watch tv and it's like you have your own personal DVR. It's free, go set it up!

Is there a downside of using Plex library rather then iTunes?

Is it less secure or more at risk in any way?

Does it take you out of the Apple ecosystem a bit even if using Mac mini and Apple TV and all other Apple products?

 

[Chatran]

For non-pro usage, even dual core is adequate.

 

[dmsea1]

For non-pro usage, even dual core is adequate.

If shooting for "Adequate" is your thing, then yeah, go get adequate. We aren't talking iMac Pro dollars here to get above adequate.

 

[archer75]

This is what I do as well-is this a cumbersome and less efficient way to download and watch movies?? If it is let me know as I have a rather pricey 4K tv (Sony 75Z9D) and expensive Dolby Atmos setup but need to make sure I’m doing things properly to get the content to it from PC. I notice when I convert some MKV or AVI files through smart converter to go to iTunes then 4K Apple TV it makes the file smaller. I’m probably losing audio or video resolution doing this then using PLEX or Infuse??
[doublepost=1543805032][/doublepost]

Is there a downside of using Plex library rather then iTunes?

Is it less secure or more at risk in any way?

Does it take you out of the Apple ecosystem a bit even if using Mac mini and Apple TV and all other Apple products?

There is no downside. Only upsides. I've been building HTPC's since the early 2000's. I have just about most of the mainstream streaming devices and used a lot of software. I have this setup as streamlined as it can get.
Plex media server. Sonarr.
Plex on all clients. Infuse on the ATV is you wish.
You can add couchpotato or radar if you like movie downloading but I no longer use these.
I also have a TV tuner. Both a Tablo and HDhomerun though now I'm only using my Tablo. I have a program that rips the shows recorded on the Tablo. Then another program that strips the commercials from those shows and drops them in my tv folder. And they are automatically added to Plex without me doing anything.
The setup is so automated the only thing I do is delete a show after I watched it. That's it.

 

[archer75]

I have bought 3 PC's during the time I had one iMac - Have had to replace too many work computers to even count. Of course PC's are fine - I prefer them for some uses. The issue with buggy software isn't because I installed it, it is because PC's get subsidized with pre-installed junk - HP, Dell, etc - are cheap because you become the product. If you can build your own, that is the best route to go, but that is a small percentage of people. And the integration absolutely makes Mac's much more stable and reliable over a long period of time for the average person - that is part of their premium. Apple makes mistakes and buggy software, but usually fix those issues much faster, and for free.

Still going to disagree. My macs are no more stable or less buggy than any pc I’ve used. I’m on my 3rd mini. iMac. Powermac. Plenty of hackintoshes. We also have hundreds of dells at work, none have any dell programs on them. And they run 24/7/365, never turning off, never going to sleep. They go months or longer without a reboot.
You’re just repeating the myths.

 

[Sun Baked]

For non-pro usage, even dual core is adequate.

Don't think so, coming from a 2014 Mini with dual core and non-pro usage.

Dual core was painfully slow for my non-pro use using pre-installed Apple apps.

However, a data base app like Books is a resource hog that pegs a 2018s i7 at near 95% when adding books, and only sucks down 20-25% of all the CPUs when simply scrolling through the books.

On the dual core mini, this use seemed like the app was always crashing the computer since it would freeze the app. Now looking at iStat Menus (recent purchase) and what the i7 CPU is doing, I can see why.

All I wanted to do was read a book on my computer, a decidedly simple non-pro task that a dual core computer wasn't really up to.

A dual core CPU fell well short of adequate in my book for non Pro use.

 

[Amazing Ox Space Monkey]

BTW, just a little advice for everyone else - one of the dumbest ways to spend your money is buying computer upgrades you don't need for the sake of "future proofing" and "resale value".

Future proofing a computer is buying computer upgrades now to solve unknown problems that do not exist yet.

"I have too much power in this computer, I wish I didn't spend the extra $200 bucks to get the fastest option"
Said no now ever.

We have to agree to disagree. There is the law of diminishing returns. For someone the i7 may save 1 hour computing time daily, for others it may save 5 seconds. If you happen to be in the second group then going for the i7 is like throwing money out of the window.

The same people saying $200 is too much are buying $1000 iPhones.

I do not understand what you mean. I don’t have a $1000 iPhone nor am I planning to.

A computer should be able to solve the problems of today, nobody knows what problems there will be 5 years from now. We expect that the future programs will be more resource hungry. However, my 2010 i3 iMac is still up to the tasks I bought it for 8 years ago. No regrets for not “future proofing” back then. It seems the base stock configuration was already well “future proofed”. The computing need of a home user are vastly overestimated.

 

[Mannaerts]

Without causing a fuss but upgrading the base i3 model to an i7/128GB is the same price as an i5/256GB SSD.
I have several external HDD's/SSD's so i'm buying the i7.
Do i need it? No way! But the i3 wasn't that high in benchmarks and i get more bang for buck from the i7.

And i'm gonna use it for 4K Plex, Handbrake etc, in other words as a Media Server for most of the time

 

[Chatran]

Don't think so, coming from a 2014 Mini with dual core and non-pro usage.

Dual core was painfully slow for my non-pro use using pre-installed Apple apps.

However, a data base app like Books is a resource hog that pegs a 2018s i7 at near 95% when adding books, and only sucks down 20-25% of all the CPUs when simply scrolling through the books.

On the dual core mini, this use seemed like the app was always crashing the computer since it would freeze the app. Now looking at iStat Menus (recent purchase) and what the i7 CPU is doing, I can see why.

All I wanted to do was read a book on my computer, a decidedly simple non-pro task that a dual core computer wasn't really up to.

A dual core CPU fell well short of adequate in my book for non Pro use.

Mechanical HDD in 2014 Mac mini?

 

[dmsea1]

Still going to disagree. My macs are no more stable or less buggy than any pc I’ve used. I’m on my 3rd mini. iMac. Powermac. Plenty of hackintoshes.
You’re just repeating the myths.

Myths?

Future proofing a computer is buying computer upgrades now to solve unknown problems that do not exist yet.

We have to agree to disagree. There is the law of diminishing returns. For someone the i7 may save 1 hour computing time daily, for others it may save 5 seconds. If you happen to be in the second group then going for the i7 is like throwing money out of the window.

Seriously, spending $200 to get the fastest option possible is about as far from throwing money out of the window as you can get. We are not talking iMac vs iMac pro here. Time is my most precious resource. If it saves me time over the likely 5-8 years that I own it, it will be a fantastic $200 spent. Get a Governor on your machine, that is your choice.

I do not understand what you mean. I don’t have a $1000 iPhone nor am I planning to.

A computer should be able to solve the problems of today, nobody knows what problems there will be 5 years from now. We expect that the future programs will be more resource hungry. However, my 2010 i3 iMac is still up to the tasks I bought it for 8 years ago. No regrets for not “future proofing” back then. It seems the base stock configuration was already well “future proofed”. The computing need of a home user are vastly overestimated.

Show me anyone that is buying a new computer that isn't thinking about the future. Whether that be AR or VR or 8k, the next generation of gaming or just getting inspired to do 4k Editing and moving from 1080 - whatever it is, there is technological gravity - apps require more resources every year, we know that. To say we don't know even 5 years out, is ridiculous. Was 8GB Ram good enough 5 years ago? it was. Now it is a bare minimum. Again, if we are talking $200, find me a better way to spend that money on this machine. More Internal Storage? More Ram? Apple Care? Pretty matching space gray keyboard and mouse? Or raw, horsepower that can't be upgraded?

 

[Sun Baked]

Mechanical HDD in 2014 Mac mini?

Still sucked on the external USB-C SSD that I migrated to while waiting for a new Mac desktop to show up.

I thought the database size was crashing the app, when it was simply choking the poor dual core CPU to death.

However the internal drive on the new 2018 Mini, and the i7 certainly make for an improved experience with the program.

 

[FrontierForever]

The computing need of a home user are vastly overestimated.

"Needs" are not the same as "wants". The Ipad is unlikely to ever be a desktop replacement.

 

[pl1984]

I have bought 3 PC's during the time I had one iMac - Have had to replace too many work computers to even count. Of course PC's are fine - I prefer them for some uses. The issue with buggy software isn't because I installed it, it is because PC's get subsidized with pre-installed junk - HP, Dell, etc - are cheap because you become the product. If you can build your own, that is the best route to go, but that is a small percentage of people. And the integration absolutely makes Mac's much more stable and reliable over a long period of time for the average person - that is part of their premium. Apple makes mistakes and buggy software, but usually fix those issues much faster, and for free.

IOW you purchased a computer that had all of this "junk" installed and then you're complaining that they had a lot of "junk" installed? You can buy PCs without "junk" but you're going to pay more for them. You'll also find they're likely of better quality too. Furthermore if you don't like the junk just uninstall it.

 

[pl1984]

If shooting for "Adequate" is your thing, then yeah, go get adequate. We aren't talking iMac Pro dollars here to get above adequate.

It seems to me adequate is exactly what people should be shooting for. Anything past adequate is wasting money.

 

[JagdTiger]

One day it may do just that.

 

[dmsea1]

It seems to me adequate is exactly what people should be shooting for. Anything past adequate is wasting money.

Buying a computer that is merely adequate today - is also wasting money. How do you define adequate in a space that is constantly evolving? It is a moving target - again, in this context, we are talking about a couple hundred bucks. What the hell is adequate?

It seems to me adequate is exactly what people should be shooting for. Anything past adequate is wasting money.

What is adequate today, can be woefully inadequate in just a few years. A new game or a new job, or a new music hobby, or a 4k drone purchase can bury your adequate machine if you hadn't planned on change, which is constant. Buying just adequate can also be a waste of money, where being cheap can be expensive. Aiming for "adequate" is just not great advice, especially if we are talking $200 here. We are not discussing iMac Pro vs Base Mac Mini.

 

[pl1984]

Buying a computer that is merely adequate today - is also wasting money. How do you define adequate in a space that is constantly evolving? It is a moving target - again, in this context, we are talking about a couple hundred bucks. What the hell is adequate?

What is adequate today, can be woefully inadequate in just a few years. A new game or a new job, or a new music hobby, or a 4k drone purchase can bury your adequate machine if you hadn't planned on change, which is constant. Buying just adequate can also be a waste of money, where being cheap can be expensive. Aiming for "adequate" is just not great advice, especially if we are talking $200 here. We are not discussing iMac Pro vs Base Mac Mini.

Adequate can encompass future needs as well. I.e. you buy a system that is adequate for your current any possible future needs. Anything beyond that is a waste of money.

 

[dmsea1]

Adequate can encompass future needs as well. I.e. you buy a system that is adequate for your current any possible future needs. Anything beyond that is a waste of money.

Now you are just dancing around semantics

 

[pl1984]

Now you are just dancing around semantics

Merely using the word as it is defined.

 

[dmsea1]

Merely using the word as it is defined.

So you think spending an extra $200 to go form i5 to i7 is a waste of money? Just go back and read the other threads on this subject, you will find yourself in the minority, which isn't an automatic bad thing, in this case, it is off.
In 5 years, I can guarantee you, nobody who paid the extra $200 to get an i7 is going to regret it. If you argue that, then you just like to disagree for the sport of it, which seems to be the case.

 

[pl1984]

So you think spending an extra $200 to go form i5 to i7 is a waste of money? Just go back and read the other threads on this subject, you will find yourself in the minority, which isn't an automatic bad thing, in this case, it is off.
In 5 years, I can guarantee you, nobody who paid the extra $200 to get an i7 is going to regret it. If you argue that, then you just like to disagree for the sport of it, which seems to be the case.

I took no position as to which processor a user should buy. I simply stated adequate is what people should be shooting for and anything above that is wasting money.