18-core vs 10-core, Designer

[Phil1919]

Hello there,
Let’s assume that there isn’t a budgetary constraint on purchasing a new iMac Pro. The majority of work being performed is Design (Adobe CC) and Prototyping related (Sketch, Invision, Axure, etc), with 15% tops on video creation. Would there be an actual performance degradation choosing an 18-core system versus a 10-core system, for instance, because of slower single processor speed? Or do I have this wrong, and even if an app only utilizes a single core, there are other system apps and processes that wouldn’t bog down with more cores? Or will a single core boost its speed and make the difference nominal or equal in a single core situation anyway?

Would more cores arguably be more “future proof” than less, even if the performance difference is nominal? Remember that budget allows for a fully spec’d iMac Pro, including maxing out RAM and the Graphics (which I understand may be more important for some applications as well).

Thank you for your help! - Phil

 

[BlueTide]

Future proofing is just wishful thinking to justify what people want and feel good.

Other than that, keep Activity Monitor open, do your work, and see about the CPU loads with your work patterns. I bet that for most parts, and other than exporting those videos, it's nowhere near fully utilized. Folks I work with do stuff you described on low end Macs just fine.

That also means that having a slight performance degradation due to slower clock speeds with more cores is unlikely to be an issue as that would be fast enough anyway. Since money is no object and if you don't need to maximize performance, load it all up and enjoy.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Hello there,
Let’s assume that there isn’t a budgetary constraint on purchasing a new iMac Pro. The majority of work being performed is Design (Adobe CC) and Prototyping related (Sketch, Invision, Axure, etc), with 15% tops on video creation. Would there be an actual performance degradation choosing an 18-core system versus a 10-core system, for instance, because of slower single processor speed? Or do I have this wrong, and even if an app only utilizes a single core, there are other system apps and processes that wouldn’t bog down with more cores? Or will a single core boost its speed and make the difference nominal or equal in a single core situation anyway?

Would more cores arguably be more “future proof” than less, even if the performance difference is nominal? Remember that budget allows for a fully spec’d iMac Pro, including maxing out RAM and the Graphics (which I understand may be more important for some applications as well).

Thank you for your help! - Phil

What I think you really want to know is whether more software will make more and better use of multiple cores with time and that currently it will make little difference. The answer to both of those questions is yes

 

[Phil1919]

Thank you both for your replies. One point of clarification.

8-core 3.2GHz, boost up to 4.2GHz
10-core 3.0GHz, boost up to 4.5GHz
18-core 2.3GHz, boost up to 4.3GHz

If looking at 2.3 vs 3.2 for single processor speeds, that doesn’t appear to be nominal. BUT, since the ‘up to’ speeds have less variance, does that mean that if an application is only using 1 core, whether on an 8 or 18 core system, the actual GHz speed will be similar (little to no variance)? I understand that if you’re maxing out all cores, you are less likely to hit boost speeds, but when a single core is only being utilized, would they essentially be running at the same speed?

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Trebuin]

Honestly, these numbers need to be updated to the actual 90% clocked down use. Ie, the 8 core clocks down to 3.9 whereas the 10 core clocks down to around 3.5

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Thank you both for your replies. One point of clarification.

8-core 3.2GHz, boost up to 4.2GHz
10-core 3.0GHz, boost up to 4.5GHz
18-core 2.3GHz, boost up to 4.3GHz

If looking at 2.3 vs 3.2 for single processor speeds, that doesn’t appear to be nominal. BUT, since the ‘up to’ speeds have less variance, does that mean that if an application is only using 1 core, whether on an 8 or 18 core system, the actual GHz speed will be similar (little to no variance)? I understand that if you’re maxing out all cores, you are less likely to hit boost speeds, but when a single core is only being utilized, would they essentially be running at the same speed?

Hope that makes sense.

Pretty much yes they are all going to run at around 4.0ghz when using one or two cores and then scale down from there as more cores and parallel processing are utilised. When a hyoerthreaded app can use all eighteen cores at 2.3ghz that is going to fly... Equally 4.0ghz on a single core app is about as fast as it gets without liquid cooling and overclocking anyway, basically its very fast in any situation.

 

[tomscott1988]

What I think you really want to know is whether more software will make more and better use of multiple cores with time and that currently it will make little difference. The answer to both of those questions is yes

The problem is its still wishful thinking. Apple has been making multi core multi CPU systems for over a decade. For example I bought the 2.8 2008 mac pro fro graphic design and photography thinking that would be future proof with being 8 cores.

In reality by the time programs had caught up it was way out of date and software was being written for much more efficient processors with hyperthreading and codecs support built in so the 8 cores weren't really taken advantage of in ordinary tasks apart from very specific tasks like computation, rendering etc where multicore power could be used.

Things are getting better but things still arent great. Many programs still benefit from high clock single core performance. Even most of CC is still that way which is such a ball ache. Most machines still only use multi cores when rendering.

I would buy for now rather than worry about the future. If you are editing 4k, creating motion graphics, computation etc this will be a good machine.

On the other hand if you are just transcoding video the i series may be better as it has quick sync video encoding and has already been shown to be about 25% faster in the 5K i7 imac vs the 10 core iMac pro. But if you are stabilizing footage adding multiple filters and colour correction the imac pro hugely faster.

Depends what you are doing.

Things will move on and you cant upgrade anything in these things making them paper weights much quicker than modular systems. Even TB3, TB2 was hailed to be incredible when it came out, now TB3 is here nobody makes TB2 peripherals etc etc.

Im still on the bench. Its an incredible machine and its not bad money on paper. Its just the BS of an all in one. You are spending your money on a beautiful 5k display with the computer bolted to it and once its done its done you cant use the screen again.

Buy a 5k monitor and you can put it on any machine you like, same with the computer it just seems mad especially when you cant buy a monitor that is the same as a secondary.

The mac pro is worth waiting for, if people have been getting by another 6 months isnt going to make a huge difference. Hopefully it will hit a similar price point to the current mac pro. I think there will be a lot of annoyed iMac pro buyers.

 

[bxs]

First... My guess is that the modular Mac Pro has been given some breathing room for its design and configuration with the introduction of the new iMac Pro. Given this I would not expect to see the modular Mac Pro for sale until we get into 2019 at the earliest.

About cores.... I came across this the other day...

"A CPU is like a worker that goes super fast. A GPU is like a group of clone workers that collectively go fast, but which all have to do exactly the same thing in unison (with the exception that you can have some clones sit idle if you want)

Which would you rather have as your fellow developer, one super fast guy, or collectively 100 fast clones that are not actually as fast, but all have to perform the same actions simultaneously?

For some actions, the clones are pretty good e.g. sweep the floor - they can each sweep a part of it.

For some actions, the clones stink, e.g. write the weekly report - all the clones but one sit idle while one clone writes the report (otherwise you just get 100 copies of the same report)."

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Hello there,
Let’s assume that there isn’t a budgetary constraint on purchasing a new iMac Pro. The majority of work being performed is Design (Adobe CC) and Prototyping related (Sketch, Invision, Axure, etc), with 15% tops on video creation. Would there be an actual performance degradation choosing an 18-core system versus a 10-core system, for instance, because of slower single processor speed? Or do I have this wrong, and even if an app only utilizes a single core, there are other system apps and processes that wouldn’t bog down with more cores? Or will a single core boost its speed and make the difference nominal or equal in a single core situation anyway?

Would more cores arguably be more “future proof” than less, even if the performance difference is nominal? Remember that budget allows for a fully spec’d iMac Pro, including maxing out RAM and the Graphics (which I understand may be more important for some applications as well).

Thank you for your help! - Phil

Buy the 8-core if you must. Unless your software is optimized for high core counts, anything beyond 4-6 isn't going to do much, if anything to improve performance (beyond letting you do more than one heavy task at once). Even then, a 4-core i7 will run most of your design software 25-50% faster because that's what most people using the software are expected to have. If you don't know why you specifically need an 18-core Xeon, you shouldn't bother getting it.
[doublepost=1514923113][/doublepost]

Thank you both for your replies. One point of clarification.

8-core 3.2GHz, boost up to 4.2GHz
10-core 3.0GHz, boost up to 4.5GHz
18-core 2.3GHz, boost up to 4.3GHz

If looking at 2.3 vs 3.2 for single processor speeds, that doesn’t appear to be nominal. BUT, since the ‘up to’ speeds have less variance, does that mean that if an application is only using 1 core, whether on an 8 or 18 core system, the actual GHz speed will be similar (little to no variance)? I understand that if you’re maxing out all cores, you are less likely to hit boost speeds, but when a single core is only being utilized, would they essentially be running at the same speed?

Hope that makes sense.

Someone on the forum did some tests that indicated that the higher base clock of the 8-core would consistently beat the 10-core on long processing runs.

The other thing that you have to realize is that software that's not optimized for more than 4 cores will only ever utilize something like a 10-core CPU at a maximum of about 50%. Depending on the app, you'll most likely see it down at 5-25% most of the time. If you're not doing non-GPU 3D rendering, 8K video editing in Final Cut, VR development in Unreal Engine, or something else that's actually optimized for all those extra cores, an i7 based Mac or PC will run your software much faster, and at full CPU utilization.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

The problem is its still wishful thinking. Apple has been making multi core multi CPU systems for over a decade. For example I bought the 2.8 2008 mac pro fro graphic design and photography thinking that would be future proof with being 8 cores.

In reality by the time programs had caught up it was way out of date and software was being written for much more efficient processors with hyperthreading and codecs support built in so the 8 cores weren't really taken advantage of in ordinary tasks apart from very specific tasks like computation, rendering etc where multicore power could be used.

Things are getting better but things still arent great. Many programs still benefit from high clock single core performance. Even most of CC is still that way which is such a ball ache. Most machines still only use multi cores when rendering.

I would buy for now rather than worry about the future. If you are editing 4k, creating motion graphics, computation etc this will be a good machine.

On the other hand if you are just transcoding video the i series may be better as it has quick sync video encoding and has already been shown to be about 25% faster in the 5K i7 imac vs the 10 core iMac pro. But if you are stabilizing footage adding multiple filters and colour correction the imac pro hugely faster.

Depends what you are doing.

Things will move on and you cant upgrade anything in these things making them paper weights much quicker than modular systems. Even TB3, TB2 was hailed to be incredible when it came out, now TB3 is here nobody makes TB2 peripherals etc etc.

Im still on the bench. Its an incredible machine and its not bad money on paper. Its just the BS of an all in one. You are spending your money on a beautiful 5k display with the computer bolted to it and once its done its done you cant use the screen again.

Buy a 5k monitor and you can put it on any machine you like, same with the computer it just seems mad especially when you cant buy a monitor that is the same as a secondary.

The mac pro is worth waiting for, if people have been getting by another 6 months isnt going to make a huge difference. Hopefully it will hit a similar price point to the current mac pro. I think there will be a lot of annoyed iMac pro buyers.

I mostly agree with this, but feel obliged to point out that nobody really knows what the "modular" Mac Pro will be like yet. All we have are dreams and guesses. When it comes down to final hardware capabilities, Apple may have a very different idea than most of us about what "modular" means. To them, it could easily mean 8 TB3 ports and the same rats nest of wires that the Trashcan Mac users have gotten used to.

If you need something like the iMP, go ahead and buy it. If you don't really need it, hold off and see.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

The problem is its still wishful thinking. Apple has been making multi core multi CPU systems for over a decade. For example I bought the 2.8 2008 mac pro fro graphic design and photography thinking that would be future proof with being 8 cores.

In reality by the time programs had caught up it was way out of date and software was being written for much more efficient processors with hyperthreading and codecs support built in so the 8 cores weren't really taken advantage of in ordinary tasks apart from very specific tasks like computation, rendering etc where multicore power could be used.

Things are getting better but things still arent great. Many programs still benefit from high clock single core performance. Even most of CC is still that way which is such a ball ache. Most machines still only use multi cores when rendering.

I would buy for now rather than worry about the future. If you are editing 4k, creating motion graphics, computation etc this will be a good machine.

On the other hand if you are just transcoding video the i series may be better as it has quick sync video encoding and has already been shown to be about 25% faster in the 5K i7 imac vs the 10 core iMac pro. But if you are stabilizing footage adding multiple filters and colour correction the imac pro hugely faster.

Depends what you are doing.

Things will move on and you cant upgrade anything in these things making them paper weights much quicker than modular systems. Even TB3, TB2 was hailed to be incredible when it came out, now TB3 is here nobody makes TB2 peripherals etc etc.

Im still on the bench. Its an incredible machine and its not bad money on paper. Its just the BS of an all in one. You are spending your money on a beautiful 5k display with the computer bolted to it and once its done its done you cant use the screen again.

Buy a 5k monitor and you can put it on any machine you like, same with the computer it just seems mad especially when you cant buy a monitor that is the same as a secondary.

The mac pro is worth waiting for, if people have been getting by another 6 months isnt going to make a huge difference. Hopefully it will hit a similar price point to the current mac pro. I think there will be a lot of annoyed iMac pro buyers.

Intel and amd have made multicores much more mainstream this year the software has no choice but to catch up now. However I do agree software wise it has been shocking for a decade,with multi core support.

Thunderbolt was a nightmare due to cost of controllers and cables, now it has been built into the same connector as everything else it’ll go more mainstream. The sheer size of 4K and 8k files etc means fast external storage will want to take advantage, not to mention the bandwidth needed for connecting 5k and 8k peripherals. It’s become a must in some industries not an expensive option especially for high end media and large raid storage.

I don’t agree about the screens and a separate computer etc, for many professionals they’ll just buy a new computer every 3 years and this iMac will be great for 3 years it’s that simple, it’s a tax write off in a business and it’s not a huge outlay for a workstation class computer. You’ll even get good resale to the enthusiast market in 3 years time i’m sure.

 

[anticipate]

Things will move on and you cant upgrade anything in these things making them paper weights much quicker than modular systems. Even TB3, TB2 was hailed to be incredible when it came out, now TB3 is here nobody makes TB2 peripherals etc etc. ...

The mac pro is worth waiting for, if people have been getting by another 6 months isnt going to make a huge difference. Hopefully it will hit a similar price point to the current mac pro. I think there will be a lot of annoyed iMac pro buyers.

These are all good points. When I bought the nMP I thought I wouldn't need anything else. Boy was I wrong, as programs (mostly 4k, 6k, 8k video editing) eventually caught up and eclipsed the machine. TB2 was supposed to be the savior and while it worked well enough, it's too slow for some applications like eGPU.

Things are different though with the iMP. The RAM is still upgradable. The CPU and SSDs look like they may be upgradable (though not easily). TB3 is fast enough for an eGPU, which can augment the (fast for today) built in one on compute, and hopefully Apple's eGPU support will mature in a few years so you can use the eGPU on the internal screen.

The iMP could easily be "current" for 5-8 years with these upgrades over time.

All of that being said, yes the modular MP would always be the better choice for longevity, unless it's priced too high.

I bought the iMP because I need the power today. And it'll last me through tomorrow. And I can augment it with an eGPU. And when it gets long in the tooth, I'll likely upgrade again... to the modular unit.

Good ole "digital rot"

 

[BlueTide]

These are all good points. When I bought the nMP I thought I wouldn't need anything else. Boy was I wrong, as programs (mostly 4k, 6k, 8k video editing) eventually caught up and eclipsed the machine. TB2 was supposed to be the savior and while it worked well enough, it's too slow for some applications like eGPU.

To add to both you; I too have been burnt too many times thinking something will be future proof. This has hit in two major ways - first, the latest and greatest will have diminishing returns for the dollar, so it's easy to end up paying more than just upgrading lesser systems more often that, on average, would be just as powerful if not more so. Second, it's not once or twice that technology has taken surprising turns that have made the machine moot. Perhaps there is a new co-processor that we absolutely need in a year or two. Perhaps there is a major leap in new GPUs that is not working well for the current machine. Perhaps there's a new API that requires different tech/extensions. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

Sure, things can work out ok, but that's rolling a dice and it still easily more costlier. Just better to buy what you know you need/want in near future.

 

[tomscott1988]

These are all good points. When I bought the nMP I thought I wouldn't need anything else. Boy was I wrong, as programs (mostly 4k, 6k, 8k video editing) eventually caught up and eclipsed the machine. TB2 was supposed to be the savior and while it worked well enough, it's too slow for some applications like eGPU.

Things are different though with the iMP. The RAM is still upgradable. The CPU and SSDs look like they may be upgradable (though not easily). TB3 is fast enough for an eGPU, which can augment the (fast for today) built in one on compute, and hopefully Apple's eGPU support will mature in a few years so you can use the eGPU on the internal screen.

The iMP could easily be "current" for 5-8 years with these upgrades over time.

All of that being said, yes the modular MP would always be the better choice for longevity, unless it's priced too high.

I bought the iMP because I need the power today. And it'll last me through tomorrow. And I can augment it with an eGPU. And when it gets long in the tooth, I'll likely upgrade again... to the modular unit.

Good ole "digital rot"

Well thats it. Who knows what the next step will be.

What is worth pointing out is that external GPUs weren't a thing really in the mainstream and they still arent. TBH if it weren't for products like the nMP and iMac and if they put a dedicated graphics card in a macbook pro smaller than 15 they wouldn't exist. Its a solution to a problem that would be so easily solved if they made a mid range tower. Theres also the fact you have to spend almost the same amount as the graphics card for a caddy to put the dam thing in anyway...

I remember initially being quite impressed with the nMP but as time went on it was obvious that there was going to be 0 support for upgrades later on. Its the ram and graphics cards that keep the product going longer. Especially graphics cards they seem to advance much quicker than CPUs these days. Even now although my mac pro was upgraded to a 3.46 hex its benching relatively well at 3k single 15.5k multi and its nigh on 10 years old.

They just make things difficult... just adding 4 drives to a 6.1 is either a litter of externals or spend an extra £500-1000 to buy a raid enclosure... what even more hilarious is that apple didnt provide a solution and let others create that market which is full of very expensive extra desk clutter that could have easily been housed like the 5.1

What is annoying is the idea that they are upgradable, apple did enough customization of the 6.1 that nobody wanted to make anything compatible and then the thermal core was woefully inadequate anyway.

It is also frustrating that you can put any GPU in the cMP but the driver support is woeful meaning your money is mostly wasted bar a couple of cards. The MP is such a niche product I suppose what else can you expect... there were about 4-5 official graphics card upgrade choices over the 3.1 - 5.1. Not a single one for the 6.1.

Then there is the imac, a great 5k display that has a pc bolted to it that will go out of date far quicker and you cant use it again without that machine driving it. Ridiculous, I know many pros who still have their aluminum ACDs because they were awesome displays but now 10-15 years old. People buy these peripherals and use them for a long time...

 

[SecuritySteve]

I know it may not pertain 100% to you, but...

The 18 core processor (at least the generic intel variant that it is based on) is rated as #2 in Dollars / Performance by PassMark benchmarks. If you think multicore processing is really going to benefit your workload, I believe you should take that rating into consideration.

Link: http://m.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W-2195+@+2.30GHz&id=3149

 

[Bryan Bowler]

I know it may not pertain 100% to you, but...

The 18 core processor (at least the generic intel variant that it is based on) is rated as #2 in Dollars / Performance by PassMark benchmarks. If you think multicore processing is really going to benefit your workload, I believe you should take that rating into consideration.

Link: http://m.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W-2195+@+2.30GHz&id=3149

Thanks for getting this thread back on track. I came here for a discussion on 18-core vs 10-core performance, but was suddenly inundated with info on the Mac Pro, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

I'm hoping more and more software will be coded to use multiple cores in the future. It's definitely a direction we need to go, the question is how long will it take to get there?

 

[anticipate]

Well thats it. Who knows what the next step will be.

(and all of your post) - I couldn't have said it better myself. As great as the iMP is, I know I'll be again replacing it in 3 years. I have done that with a bunch of macs, moving from desktops to iMacs to laptops and back again chasing performance.

Because I have the iMP, I'll probably skip the new new MP. But if I keep making money I'll eventually go to it I am sure as tech improves (eGPUs notwithstanding, which may bridge the gap).

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Thanks for getting this thread back on track. I came here for a discussion on 18-core vs 10-core performance, but was suddenly inundated with info on the Mac Pro, which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

I'm hoping more and more software will be coded to use multiple cores in the future. It's definitely a direction we need to go, the question is how long will it take to get there?

I guess my answer, from everything else expressed in this thread, is that you should assume that multi-core performance in most apps won't meaningfully improve within the useful life of this computer. For that to happen, a significant number of normal Mac and Windows users will have buy computers with 6-8 core chips. Otherwise only those companies making (very expensive) software for niche industries like 3D animation/rendering will bother to do the optimizations required.

But you don't need much beyond 2-4 cores for office software, web browsing, etc. Not even really for games right now.

So look at the software that you actually use and make a decision to buy (or not) based on whether more cores will let you get your current or near-future work done faster than a computer with a higher clock speed would. Or if you need a better GPU for WORK, and not just playing games.

 

[Bryan Bowler]

I guess my answer, from everything else expressed in this thread, is that you should assume that multi-core performance in most apps won't meaningfully improve within the useful life of this computer. For that to happen, a significant number of normal Mac and Windows users will have buy computers with 6-8 core chips. Otherwise only those companies making (very expensive) software for niche industries like 3D animation/rendering will bother to do the optimizations required.

But you don't need much beyond 2-4 cores for office software, web browsing, etc. Not even really for games right now.

So look at the software that you actually use and make a decision to buy (or not) based on whether more cores will let you get your current or near-future work done faster than a computer with a higher clock speed would. Or if you need a better GPU for WORK, and not just playing games.

That makes sense -- excellent advice. Thank you!

A good example is as a photographer, I extensively use Capture One by Phase One. I recently wrote to them and they said Capture One is coded to utilize as many cores as you can throw at it and up to four GPUs. Now, granted, this alone may not necessarily be a big enough reason for me to get more than 10 cores, but it is worth knowing that the software can utilize 14 or 18 cores. Of course, it all depends on what tasks you are doing and what the outcome/benefit is to determine if it is even worth it. Regardless, your advice makes a lot of sense. Each individual user needs to carefully evaluate their needs and the software they utilize to see if a 14-core or 18-core machine would provide tangible benefits.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

That makes sense -- excellent advice. Thank you!

A good example is as a photographer, I extensively use Capture One by Phase One. I recently wrote to them and they said Capture One is coded to utilize as many cores as you can throw at it and up to four GPUs. Now, granted, this alone may not necessarily be a big enough reason for me to get more than 10 cores, but it is worth knowing that the software can utilize 14 or 18 cores. Of course, it all depends on what tasks you are doing and what the outcome/benefit is to determine if it is even worth it. Regardless, your advice makes a lot of sense. Each individual user needs to carefully evaluate their needs and the software they utilize to see if a 14-core or 18-core machine would provide tangible benefits.

Photography example:

If you use Adobe Camera RAW, you will see a VERY significant reduction (pretty much linear with the number of cores) in the time it takes to load up 100+ 30MB 16-bit RAW files, and see your changes propagate through all of the images you have selected. Saving is as slow as ever, but editing is WAY faster. A professional photographer or anyone who depends on a RAW workflow will kill for this kind of editing improvement. Particularly when the machine is robust enough that it doesn't slow down when you switch to another task while it saves out your changes.

But... If you don't shoot in the RAW format, and are just working with a dozen or less 4MB 8-bit JPG files at a time, and aren't really multitasking much, you won't see any improvement over a fast 4-core system.

 

[BayouTiger]

Well at least the good news seems to be that the latest processors seem to scale down as well as up much better than the ones we had in the nMP. Having upgraded my trash can from the 6c to the 12c, I loved how much faster multithreaded stuff was, but I was actually shocked to see just how much worse my more mundane work was with the 2.7 12c. Was the hit really that big. Probably not, but it sure felt like a lot.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Well at least the good news seems to be that the latest processors seem to scale down as well as up much better than the ones we had in the nMP. Having upgraded my trash can from the 6c to the 12c, I loved how much faster multithreaded stuff was, but I was actually shocked to see just how much worse my more mundane work was with the 2.7 12c. Was the hit really that big. Probably not, but it sure felt like a lot.

What makes you say that? I've tested software that ran faster on my 2015 iMac, my i7 PC, and where the iMP only barely beat a 2017 MBP due to the latter's thermal throttling.

 

[BayouTiger]

What makes you say that? I've tested software that ran faster on my 2015 iMac, my i7 PC, and where the iMP only barely beat a 2017 MBP due to the latter's thermal throttling.

My point was that it seems at first glance that the iMP seems pretty well balanced across the board more than the trash can. Of course there’s not much data out there for the 14&18 core units, but all indications are that their performance in lightly threaded apps will be much better than what we saw with the 12c Mac Pro which was pretty sluggish by comparison and the reason I liked it better as a 6c than when I “upgraded” to a 12c.

As to all the benchmarks that show the iMP getting beat by i7 based Macs, I think every one I see has been in a video app where QuickSync is part of the workflow. Honestly, my biggest frustration with the available reviews is that they are nearly all based in Video work. Of course since the ones doing them are YouTubers, that’s what they do. Virtually nothing out there to guide those of us that do very little video, dedicate our high thread count to more mundane things. My use of multiple cores is more driven by having large files open in apps like BlueBeam and AutoCAD, while having large windows VMs open handling Revit and lighting calculation modeling. None of these are particularly demanding by themselves except AGI lighting calculations, but together they can bring a system to its knees very well.

You really don’t realize just how awesome a truly powerful mac is until you live in the PC world for awhile (also why most users don’t see much difference in day to day use of Win10) until you give it up. You just can’t divvy up the sandbox in Windows like you can on a Mac with a bunch of cores and ram.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

My point was that it seems at first glance that the iMP seems pretty well balanced across the board more than the trash can. Of course there’s not much data out there for the 14&18 core units, but all indications are that their performance in lightly threaded apps will be much better than what we saw with the 12c Mac Pro which was pretty sluggish by comparison and the reason I liked it better as a 6c than when I “upgraded” to a 12c.

As to all the benchmarks that show the iMP getting beat by i7 based Macs, I think every one I see has been in a video app where QuickSync is part of the workflow. Honestly, my biggest frustration with the available reviews is that they are nearly all based in Video work. Of course since the ones doing them are YouTubers, that’s what they do. Virtually nothing out there to guide those of us that do very little video, dedicate our high thread count to more mundane things. My use of multiple cores is more driven by having large files open in apps like BlueBeam and AutoCAD, while having large windows VMs open handling Revit and lighting calculation modeling. None of these are particularly demanding by themselves except AGI lighting calculations, but together they can bring a system to its knees very well.

You really don’t realize just how awesome a truly powerful mac is until you live in the PC world for awhile (also why most users don’t see much difference in day to day use of Win10) until you give it up. You just can’t divvy up the sandbox in Windows like you can on a Mac with a bunch of cores and ram.

Ahem...

I did my tests on a 3D photogrammetry program (makes 3D models from photographs) and as you can see from my attached spreadsheet image, despite this being a computationally demanding program, it's optimized for 4 fast cores instead of higher numbers of slower ones.

Specifically, it seems as though it feeds data to every processor at once, and then waits until every processor is done before giving them all data again. Which means that computational outliers can force every other core to wait while they complete. Freezing utilization at 5% while they do so. But even when all the cores are working, utilization rarely goes above 50%. In this kind of program, an i7 will smoke it every time.

So buying more cores still requires trading off a performance hit when using most mass-market software, with the processing gains that you'll see when using expensive niche software. No, it's not as bad as the days when everything was single-threaded. But you're still limited by the optimizations developers use for the 99% of the market that the iMP doesn't represent.

 

[BayouTiger]

Ahem...

I did my tests on a 3D photogrammetry program (makes 3D models from photographs) and as you can see from my attached spreadsheet image, despite this being a computationally demanding program, it's optimized for 4 fast cores instead of higher numbers of slower ones.

Specifically, it seems as though it feeds data to every processor at once, and then waits until every processor is done before giving them all data again. Which means that computational outliers can force every other core to wait while they complete. Freezing utilization at 5% while they do so. But even when all the cores are working, utilization rarely goes above 50%. In this kind of program, an i7 will smoke it every time.

So buying more cores still requires trading off a performance hit when using most mass-market software, with the processing gains that you'll see when using expensive niche software. No, it's not as bad as the days when everything was single-threaded. But you're still limited by the optimizations developers use for the 99% of the market that the iMP doesn't represent.

Well, for that application, the "lesser"machine may be better, but to my point how bad was the 12C on the 2013 and before? I'm betting they were much worse. There will always be apps that find the weakness in a system, it's just a matter of what fits your workload best. Also why I cancelled my 10C order and got the base. For me, I don't think the Vega64, and extra cores would be worth the extra cash. The ram would be, but I can upgrade that later. Ive been working a 32GB footprint for a long time so no biggie there. I actually was close to getting the TOTL iMac5K fo many of the reasons you stated, but decided the extra TB3 ports, 10Gbe, Faster SSD, GPS and Proc were with the $1500 or so upgrade, but wouldn't scale as well to $3000 or so.