I'd like to see a 2020 i7 iMac bench mark vs. a late 2015 i7 both with 32gb ram comparison.
Me too, I have the late 27” ‘15 i7 4GHz ....
I'd like to see a 2020 i7 iMac bench mark vs. a late 2015 i7 both with 32gb ram comparison.
HomePod’s power cable is removable.
how is that any different from any of the other hundreds of soldered electronic components? Are you privy to some secret reliability data that shows these SSDs last a few weeks before failing?
The lowest spec 27-inch i5 iMac from 2020 performs about 20 percent better in multicore than the lowest spec 27-inch i5 iMac from 2019. Although the lowest spec 27-inch 2020 iMac has a Intel Core i5 3.1GHz processor, it seems to perform better than an equivalent Intel Core i5 3.7GHz model from 2019. This is likely thanks to new 10th-generation Intel Core processors, which Apple says offer up to 65 percent faster CPU performance.
Because storage is prone to failure
no to mention corruption and viruses like ransomeware,
New update says that the SSD is in fact not removable, but the 4 and 8 TB models have an expansion slot. So I guess you were the early bird who got fooled.This
![]()
Early birds got fooled this time ...
Early birds got fooled this time ...
Pay attention when they post scores, they play games with Geekbench 4 vs. 5 to pump the numbers up and skew opinion on folks that just take a glance. 3-5% speed increase core to core is what Intel is capable of doing right now. Last iMac, Intel's last gasp at 14nm.According to the Geekbench Browser the 2019 iMac with i9-9900k and 8 cores has a multi core score of 8292 - So higher than the measured 8223 of this year's maxed-out model?
Yes, correct. It will die on you after thousand upon thousands of writes. Expect death in 15+ years, oh wait, you won't have the computer in 15 years... Context is key.because when you write to a flash chip it physically damages it and has a finite lifespan, unlike transistor based components.
In practice, though, I have never actually heard of stories of people's Macs failing due to the SSD. The limited write cycles seem like a vastly overstated story.
The SSD part of my 2013 iMac Fusion drive failed. Two weeks before the 3 year warranty limit, so got a free replacement from Apple. When they get fails on the new machines they have to dump the whole main board...
The SSD part of my 2013 iMac Fusion drive failed. Two weeks before the 3 year warranty limit, so got a free replacement from Apple. When they get fails on the new machines they have to dump the whole main board...
Three years indeed isn't great.
Computers are one of the only things I'd probably purchase Apple Care on going forward because some of the repair costs are really ridiculous and you can continue the Apple Care payments month to month for up to 5 years.
At least if I smash my iPhone I can get a refurb for like 40% of the cost. I don't think that's the case for a mac.
Asking to have the hard drive not soldered is not a crazy ask. Can you come up with another reason other than Apple doesn’t want us replacing/upgrading the harddrive on our own?
I would be curious if that was due to the machine keep on transferring data between the SSD and HD. Which I know small SSD’s are less tolerant to a lot of writes. My 2013 iMac with the 512 GB SSD was good for the 5 years I used it before upgrading to the 2019.
If not that, probably the controller died. Also understand that’s an SSD’s biggest weak point is the controller than the storage medium themselves. And if the controller goes, the data is lost as well to my understanding. Having the T2 being the controller may improve reliability in that regard since it is based off an A series SoC.
Bit disappointed at the 3.8GHz 8-Core model I just ordered only getting just 1141/7006 - I get 1089/4373 on my current 2017 iMac.
iMac (27-inch Retina Mid 2017) - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an iMac (27-inch Retina Mid 2017) with an Intel Core i7-7700K processor.browser.geekbench.com
The SSD speed will make up for it I guess compared to the 3TB fusion card (200MB peak read/write for large files....)
Ran GeekBench 5 on the new machine (3.8GHz 8-Core i7, AMD Radeon Pro 5700 8 GB, 72GB RAM, 4TB SSD) and got the following results:
CPU: 1177 / 7927 - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/3327012
GPU:
OpenCL: 44174 - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/1356337
Metal: 49980 - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/1356339
81% multi-core boost when doubling the core count isn't bad at all.
But the single-core result is fairly weak, yes. Keep in mind the CPU is just a(nother) mild revision of the 2015 Skylake. The 2017 is Kaby Lake, and this one is Comet Lake; neither changes the microarchitecture nor the process node. This winter's Rocket Lake (new microarchitecture*) or next year's (or 2022's?) Alder Lake (new process node, too) will probably make much more of a difference. Will either of those ever end up in an iMac? Maybe not.
*) With other goodies, such as PCIe 4.
It is rather funny that a $399 iPhone SE is a quarter faster at single-core tasks.
XCode is noticeably faster once it gets going on a reasonable sized project though, but that is SSD vs HDD rather than anything else.
Yeah. Xcode will make good use of those cores, though.
Ran GeekBench 5 on the new machine (3.8GHz 8-Core i7, AMD Radeon Pro 5700 8 GB, 72GB RAM, 4TB SSD) and got the following results:
CPU: 1177 / 7927 - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/3327012
GPU:
OpenCL: 44174 - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/1356337
Metal: 49980 - https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/compute/1356339