Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

stew278

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 12, 2006
33
14
I'm looking to upgrade to the newest iMac, but am trying to decide what upgrades are well worth it, and which will give me the most bang for my buck. If I were to specifically spend extra on any one upgrade, which would you think is the most important?

Setting aside RAM, I'm curious if there are other designers out there who are using Adobe CC (primarily Photoshop, After Effects, Illustrator, InDesign, and Dreamweaver), and are looking at upgrades for specifically that list of software? I've been trying to compare processors and graphic cards, and seeing which combination will give me the best value and have a significant impact on the software I use in Adobe CC.

I'm not seeking to max out in every category and spend $9k. I'd appreciate advice on something like, "Get the i9 processor with 10-cores because...," or, "Pony up for the 5700 XT, because..." Hopefully there are others also thinking along the same lines and can speak from experience. :) Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: alven and Spk1
1. Buy the RAM yourself to avoid Apple Tax™, so stick with 8GB
2. Consider whether you need the matte screen, personally I'd highly recommend it for design work, so spring the $500
3. Max the GPU out if you're using Adobe CC
4. Get the i7 model if you need to save $400 cash, or the i9 model if you need this machine to last 4-5 years or so.
5. Skip the 10Gbps ethernet unless you do local data management with a NAS
6. Stick with the 512GB SSD and use a thunderbolt 3 or USB 3.1/2 external drive velcro'd to the back of the machine for additional storage.

Should come in around $4000 or less, definitely not $9000
 
  • Like
Reactions: mlblacy and Spk1
I'm on the same boat as you. Mainly working in inDesign, Photoshop and Illustrator so I'm deciding between i7 with higher clock speed or i9 with more cores. Adobe is known to be poorly optimised for multi-core and works better with higher Ghz number but I'd love those 10 cores for sure.
As for the GPU, again - faster one will be more desirable so I'm going with the top end model. Not sure if I ever use 16GB though.
I'm going with 2TB storage, I have plenty of external HDD's connected but my current Fusion 1TB was always 100GB from being full so I want to avoid that.
The whole order will cost me around €4300, so it's not that bad 😂
And yes, I'm getting my own RAM, 64GB for around €240 from Amazon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spk1
@timerickson Thank you for your input. Regarding the GPU; I keep questioning how much difference there would be between the 5700 and 5700 XT? Clearly there is going to be a performance boost just from the base 5300 – but I get lost when trying to look at benchmarks and performance differences and how that translates into real world applications with software like the Adobe CC, as well as really just comparing the two against each other. I've also read in the Forum, that the 5700 clocks at a lower speed than the 5700 XT, and that the 5700 upgrade will get you "more bang for your buck," than the 5700 XT. Wondering if you have any thoughts on that, or just in general about the performance between the two? Is the 5700 XT really worth the extra $200, when considering the intended use (Adobe CC)? Would the performance boost of the 5700 XT over the 5700 be significant, or would it be minimal (compared to the 5300 and to the 5500 XT, respectfully)

@redlik Thank you also for replying and your thoughts. Regarding the comment about Adobe and multi-core, that's exactly the kind of information too that I was looking for. 👍 Can you share or point to anything about that? Because I'm trying to balance performance and cost here with a purchase in mind, I keep wondering what is going to have the biggest impact on my workload (ie. Adobe CC), and be the best use of my money. I'm typically not the kind of guy that just goes out and purchases the biggest, baddest, fastest "thing" – especially when the shelf life is about 3-5 years. So with that, is the smarter buy the i7 or i9?

The other comment about going with a lower SSD and attaching an external SSD has gotten me to think about changing up my workflow and working off of an external HD instead. It's an interesting idea, and I can already see some pros to that. I am only worried about the fact there is no upgrade path to the HDs now, and that 1TB upgrade might be money well spent to "future proof" this thing – considering that Adobe has NEVER in its history made the next version/software release, smaller in size. (ie. "better/more streamlined") :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: alven and Spk1
As far as the GPU either get the 5500 XT or 5700 XT. Don't get the 5700 because at that point you are already in the hole $300 and you might as well spend the extra $200 for a 16GB card.

If you are sort of tight on money I would get the following. Spring an extra $500 for the nano glass if you don't have a room where lighting is fixed and controlled.


  • Standard glass
  • 3.8GHz 8-core 10th-generation Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz
  • 8GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory
  • Radeon Pro 5700 XT with 16GB of GDDR6 memory
  • 512GB SSD storage
$2799
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spk1
I'm not sure you'll see any difference between the base GPU and the 5700 XT for those applications.


Adobe has been increasing support for GPU acceleration in Photoshop over the last few years, but currently there are only a handful of effects that can utilize the video card. Adobe maintains a list of effects that are GPU accelerated in their GPU FAQ: Photoshop GPU card FAQ

Although Adobe is constantly expanding GPU acceleration support to Photoshop, the current demand on the video card is actually relatively light. Even an entry video card will be able to provide a huge boost in performance for GPU accelerated effects but there is a sharp drop in performance benefit by using anything more than a mid-range video card. A few tasks may be able to see a performance benefit to using a high-end card like the RTX 2080, but a GTX 1060 or RTX 2070 is going to get you within a few percent of the best performance possible.

After Effects:

Which GPU Should You Use?

Considering Adobe After Effects VFX capabilities, it is understandable that most people believed a very high-end graphics card is required. If fact this is incorrect and there is only a very minimal improvement from going from a low/mid-range GPU to the high-end options on the market. Instead investing more heavily in your processor or RAM will provide far more significant improvements to your After Effects Workstation performance.
 
I'm not sure you'll see any difference between the base GPU and the 5700 XT for those applications.




After Effects:
I would echo this. I would prioritize the nano glass if your environment merits it and 3rd party RAM upgrade. The OP mentioned a 3-5 year shelf life, and if this is the timeline then I think a base tier 3 is more than sufficient. Given that Adobe CC is ready to go on new AS Macs, and these new Macs are likely to have even larger, better displays a base tier 1 may even be sufficient to bridge that gap. Those 6-cores with HT are pretty dang good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spk1
@KrazyKanuck 3-5 years, optimistically. I say that working on an ancient 27" mid-2011 iMac... Before passing judgment, pre-2012, I was on a 18-24 month cycle of updating between desktops and laptops. I've been able to keep my current computers running fine and upgrading specs along the way. Now though is the time to spring for a new machine. I pretty much "have to." So regarding that comment, it's more that people expect 3-5 years out of their machines, and I'm under no delusions. However, I've gotten REALLY good mileage from my mid-2011 iMac, and I wouldn't be shy about spending where it counts if it meant that I was getting 5-7 years out of the machine. (I'm also not going to jump right away on the ARM bandwagon once Apple switches. Primarily because of developers and software. My first computer was a PowerPC 9600... I waited on the Intel switch for things to get ironed out, and plan on doing the same here. These reasons, and the great upgrades and features makes this model a VERY attractive and worthwhile purchase IMHO.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spk1
As far as the GPU either get the 5500 XT or 5700 XT. Don't get the 5700 because at that point you are already in the hole $300 and you might as well spend the extra $200 for a 16GB card.

I get that it's only a $200 difference between the 5700 and 5700 XT, but the same logic can be applied between the 5500 XT and 5700. I'm interested in knowing if there is a significant boost in performance and productivity between the 5700 and the 5700 XT, or if the difference is relatively marginal.

I came across this benchmark, comparing a 5700 XT to the 5500 XT, but the configurations also are between the i9 and i7 – making it kind of an irrelevant comparisons between GPUS. Ideally, both would be the same processor, with different GPUs.

I am struggling to find a good comparison just between the 5700 and 5700 XT to see if that's money well spent. I personally do not know what 8GB compared to 16GB of memory actually translates to in real world applications, and how much of that will mean Adobe applications work faster and better.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-08-10 at 10.18.26 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2020-08-10 at 10.18.26 AM.png
    226.4 KB · Views: 436
@KrazyKanuck 3-5 years, optimistically. I say that working on an ancient 27" mid-2011 iMac... Before passing judgment, pre-2012, I was on a 18-24 month cycle of updating between desktops and laptops. I've been able to keep my current computers running fine and upgrading specs along the way. Now though is the time to spring for a new machine. I pretty much "have to." So regarding that comment, it's more that people expect 3-5 years out of their machines, and I'm under no delusions. However, I've gotten REALLY good mileage from my mid-2011 iMac, and I wouldn't be shy about spending where it counts if it meant that I was getting 5-7 years out of the machine. (I'm also not going to jump right away on the ARM bandwagon once Apple switches. Primarily because of developers and software. My first computer was a PowerPC 9600... I waited on the Intel switch for things to get ironed out, and plan on doing the same here. These reasons, and the great upgrades and features makes this model a VERY attractive and worthwhile purchase IMHO.)
Ah, a kindred spirit! I've been using the base tier 3 for a few days now. It's a dramatic improvement in many ways over my 2013 27-inch. Part of me (a small but vocal part of my inner being) wants to return it and bump up the graphics and storage. I use a variety of design applications for, maybe, 20% of the time I spend on the computer, and I haven't been anything but thrilled so far. And if I were only keeping this machine for 3-5 years then I wouldn't bother with upgrades. But the idea of 1TB of storage and an upgraded graphics card are tempting upgrades if I want to stretch out its longevity, or have a fairly capable backup system.
 
I'm not sure you'll see any difference between the base GPU and the 5700 XT for those applications.

Thank you LiE_. This information is exactly what I'm looking for. I'm going to read through all three of these links you posted, but thank you none the less for taking the time to reply and post :) Very helpful!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mlblacy and LiE_
Ah, a kindred spirit! I've been using the base tier 3 for a few days now. It's a dramatic improvement in many ways over my 2013 27-inch. Part of me (a small but vocal part of my inner being) wants to return it and bump up the graphics and storage. I use a variety of design applications for, maybe, 20% of the time I spend on the computer, and I haven't been anything but thrilled so far. And if I were only keeping this machine for 3-5 years then I wouldn't bother with upgrades. But the idea of 1TB of storage and an upgraded graphics card are tempting upgrades if I want to stretch out its longevity, or have a fairly capable backup system.

What system specs did you go with @KrazyKanuck? (If I may ask) Kindred spirit in the sense that since 2012 things have been, um, "disappointing?" Or in the sense of trying to get something to last twice as long as others do, or until Apple no longer supports it? 😉
 
I would prioritize the nano glass if your environment merits it

Have already made that decision, and yes – I'm upgrading to the nano glass. I was hesitant, without being able to see it in person thanks to this pandemic, and going back-and-forth about justifying the cost. But I've watched a number of videos and can tell that the upgrade is well worth it and a remarkable difference.

I've been "okay" with the glossy iMac screen for a number of years. Doesn't bother me too much. But I do, from time-to-time, see my reflection or things behind me being reflected on the glossy surface. When focussed on work – I don't see it that much. But there are some times when the sun completely blinds me from seeing work, or I have to reposition myself because a reflection is not letting me see the work as it should be seen ... that drives me crazy.

I totally see the difference, even on YouTube, and have made up my mind on that upgrade. :)
 
What system specs did you go with @KrazyKanuck? (If I may ask) Kindred spirit in the sense that since 2012 things have been, um, "disappointing?" Or in the sense of trying to get something to last twice as long as others do, or until Apple no longer supports it? 😉
I ordered the stock configuration: i7, 512, 5500 XT. There is no logical reason why I should upgrade it for what I do. But I'm not always a logical person.

Kindred spirit in the sense that I would like a fresher design and that I try and milk these products for as long as possible. And therein lies the great dilemma with this iteration of iMacs. Somehow I want to reconcile my desire to have a capable legacy system that will last a while with my desire to have a "fresher" looking iMac, no doubt with marked improvements in display and internals. Sigh...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spk1
I get that it's only a $200 difference between the 5700 and 5700 XT, but the same logic can be applied between the 5500 XT and 5700. I'm interested in knowing if there is a significant boost in performance and productivity between the 5700 and the 5700 XT, or if the difference is relatively marginal.

I came across this benchmark, comparing a 5700 XT to the 5500 XT, but the configurations also are between the i9 and i7 – making it kind of an irrelevant comparisons between GPUS. Ideally, both would be the same processor, with different GPUs.

I am struggling to find a good comparison just between the 5700 and 5700 XT to see if that's money well spent. I personally do not know what 8GB compared to 16GB of memory actually translates to in real world applications, and how much of that will mean Adobe applications work faster and better.
It's becoming a bit frustrating to find a comparison between the 5700 and the 5700XT or 5500XT, which is something I'd really like to see.

I used to be in the graphic design/desktop publishing game for about 20 years. I would typically get between 8-10 years use out of a Mac before the performance really began to affect my work and I'd have no choice but to get something new. Now I don't need something so powerful - but I still like to game now and then :) I used to get by with a mid-range Power PC or Mac Pro (currently 5,1 Mac Pro with 3.46 quad core Xeon).

I think for you, I'd get the i7 as the performance against the i9 won't be significant for you, at least 1 GB of storage (2 would be better, based on what you've said), get your own RAM, and wait just a bit longer to choose between GPUs when more info comes out. That said, LiE_ makes a good case for the 5500XT if you'd rather get the Nano glass or spend the money elsewhere. I just bought an OWC Drive Dock https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/external-drives/owc-drive-dock (from Amazon as it's cheaper for a Canuck like me) to give me the extra storage I need and to simplify moving my stuff from the old to new machine.

I'm hoping to get 7 years out of this machine (I'm also waiting on more GPU specs before I put the trigger) and OS updates aside, I think I can do it with a similar machine to what you'll probably get - and still be able to crank out the odd graphic work now and again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: intagli
Have already made that decision, and yes – I'm upgrading to the nano glass. I was hesitant, without being able to see it in person thanks to this pandemic, and going back-and-forth about justifying the cost. But I've watched a number of videos and can tell that the upgrade is well worth it and a remarkable difference.

FYI, I returned my nano XDR and reordered with the standard version back in February. To my eye, the nano texture decreased the screen clarity and texts looked a little pixelated, viewing angle was also slightly reduced. If you are working mainly on images and videos then it is really nice to have, but for InDesign works etc, I would avoid it. The standard glass simply looks "better" IMHO.

Of course, these are the observations based on the nano XDR, but since Apple markets it as the same material, I think they are the same.

All the reviews so far on youtube are nothing more than reading out the spec sheet, none of them did a side by side comparison with nano vs standard glass. And most of them are not staring texts for hours, but if you are a designer, and working with texts all day, I trust you would notice the difference.

Don't get me wrong, I am a matte screen person and all of my previous EIZO/NEC monitors are matte screens, but as for the case on XDR, I tried it, compared it to the standard glass with my own eyes in real life, and I don't like it.

It would be nice for you to visit a local apple store so you could compare. Some stores(flagships) have both versions side by side, but not all of then have these two up for demo.
 
For gaming the 5700 XT is something like 10-12% better than the 5700. I know it doesn't convert exactly here however it doesn't really matter anyway because I doubt you would need more than the 5500 XT for what you described, as someone said above the processor is more important. Also the system RAM. As for the amount of VRAM, only people doing serious 3D modelling should need 16GB of VRAM, even 4K games don't use more than 8GB these days. Adobe recommends a GPU with 4GB of VRAM too for their Premiere suite of apps. The 5700 and 5700 XT are both overkill for your use case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: intagli
As someone who has Photoshop open 24/7 365 on their iMac (doing graphic design) don't bother going with 5700 or 5700 XT unless you plan on playing some games or taking up 3D/video rendering. I find programs like Photoshop or Illustrator just don't get that big of a performance benefit from having that level of a GPU upgrade over what comes stock on the high end 27" iMac config. Having really any dedicated GPU over a integrated GPU with a half way decent amount of vRam makes more of the difference vs. having the latest fastest card possible, for Photoshop or Illustrator.

Not knowing specially what your working on, I do mobile app and web development and create all of my own assets and designs for my work so I always have high res documents open 3k or 5k. I find having a very fast CPU and tons of ram are the best benefit, fast storage helps out a bit too. Right now as I type this I have Photoshop open with 4 documents and its using a nice 11.28 GB of ram.
 
All the reviews so far on youtube are nothing more than reading out the spec sheet, none of them did a side by side comparison with nano vs standard glass.

I came across this video, and I think of all the ones I've seen showcasing the "matte" screen – this one does a pretty good job of comparing the two, side-by-side.
(2:40 mark)


It would be nice for you to visit a local apple store so you could compare. Some stores(flagships) have both versions side by side, but not all of then have these two up for demo.

I wish it were possible, just like I wish for an end to the pandemic overall.
 
For gaming the 5700 XT is something like 10-12% better than the 5700. I know it doesn't convert exactly here however it doesn't really matter anyway because I doubt you would need more than the 5500 XT for what you described, as someone said above the processor is more important. Also the system RAM. As for the amount of VRAM, only people doing serious 3D modelling should need 16GB of VRAM, even 4K games don't use more than 8GB these days. Adobe recommends a GPU with 4GB of VRAM too for their Premiere suite of apps. The 5700 and 5700 XT are both overkill for your use case.

Thank you! 👍 That remark about "serious 3D modeling" was key and I'm heavily weighting your comment, along with others who've posted here. I don't do any of that, but I do work in After Effects and Photoshop extensively and I know that graphic cards are important, just not how so relatively speaking. I'm not up to speed on how much these options will affect performance, and like Apple RAM, I don't see the point of spending more when the performance upgrade doesn't match the upgrade in price.
 
As someone who has Photoshop open 24/7 365 on their iMac (doing graphic design) don't bother going with 5700 or 5700 XT unless you plan on playing some games or taking up 3D/video rendering. I find programs like Photoshop or Illustrator just don't get that big of a performance benefit from having that level of a GPU upgrade over what comes stock on the high end 27" iMac config. Having really any dedicated GPU over a integrated GPU with a half way decent amount of vRam makes more of the difference vs. having the latest fastest card possible, for Photoshop or Illustrator.

Not knowing specially what your working on, I do mobile app and web development and create all of my own assets and designs for my work so I always have high res documents open 3k or 5k. I find having a very fast CPU and tons of ram are the best benefit, fast storage helps out a bit too. Right now as I type this I have Photoshop open with 4 documents and its using a nice 11.28 GB of ram.

Thanks @dlewis23! Right now, I have open on my relic of an iMac, Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects and Media Encoder – as well as Mail, FontExplorer X Pro, Amazon Music, Fanurio, and Opera. :) I'll have no shortage of work windows open in any given application, and will bounce back-and-forth between, usually without a problem. I'm not working on large 5+GB outdoor exhibit design files (which I've found in the past have taxed any machine I've had/been on, regardless), but tend to be more digital design with web, multimedia, etc. Print projects come and go, but they probably represent maybe 10-15% of my workload the past few years.

If I'm hearing you correctly, your opinion is that the i9 processor is a better upgrade over a 5700 or 5700 XT card?

Also, I plan on putting in 128GB of RAM on my own, at some point. I know that will tame Photoshop's hunger. :)
 
Thanks @dlewis23! Right now, I have open on my relic of an iMac, Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects and Media Encoder – as well as Mail, FontExplorer X Pro, Amazon Music, Fanurio, and Opera. :) I'll have no shortage of work windows open in any given application, and will bounce back-and-forth between, usually without a problem. I'm not working on large 5+GB outdoor exhibit design files (which I've found in the past have taxed any machine I've had/been on, regardless), but tend to be more digital design with web, multimedia, etc. Print projects come and go, but they probably represent maybe 10-15% of my workload the past few years.

If I'm hearing you correctly, your opinion is that the i9 processor is a better upgrade over a 5700 or 5700 XT card?

Also, I plan on putting in 128GB of RAM on my own, at some point. I know that will tame Photoshop's hunger. :)

I may not even go with the i9. I am on the fence for that upgrade myself. The i7 in the 2020 top end config iMac seems really good, it has a higher base clock and turbo boosts to the same 5 GHz but have seen a video where it went to 5.1 GHz. You're loosing 2 cores and 4 threads but the faster base clock sometimes can be better if it's able to maintain that.

Keeping the i7, using the money to add ram after you get it and option more storage 1 or 2 TB that is faster then the base 512 GB might be the way to go. Anything you do get will be a lot faster than what you're coming from.
 
Personally believe the 2019 iMac with i9, at least 1TB SSD and Vega 48 is a better value/performance vs. the 2020 model with 5XXX series GPU IF you can find stock. Either way, get base RAM from Apple and upgrade yourself.

Overall, the 5XXX drivers in macOS are not as polished. Same issues on MacPro7,1 with W5700X. If your goal is Adobe video usage, Vega based makes a difference.
 
I think for your use case going with the i7, the 5500 XT with 1 TB storage and of course upgrading the RAM yourself would be your best bet. The i7 base speed is higher than the i9 and gets the same turbo boost. The 5500 XT should be more than enough for graphic design work (unless you plan to connect 2 6K displays, this is only available starting with the 5700 afaik).

Upgrading to 1 TB would help resale value and I also think it helps to be able to work directly from internal storage.

I would be really interested in benchmarks of the graphics options though, as I'd like to be able to play the occasional game as well; the new flight simulator release comes to mind...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spk1
Personally believe the 2019 iMac with i9, at least 1TB SSD and Vega 48 is a better value/performance vs. the 2020 model with 5XXX series GPU IF you can find stock. Either way, get base RAM from Apple and upgrade yourself.

Overall, the 5XXX drivers in macOS are not as polished. Same issues on MacPro7,1 with W5700X. If your goal is Adobe video usage, Vega based makes a difference.
I think for your use case going with the i7, the 5500 XT with 1 TB storage and of course upgrading the RAM yourself would be your best bet. The i7 base speed is higher than the i9 and gets the same turbo boost. The 5500 XT should be more than enough for graphic design work (unless you plan to connect 2 6K displays, this is only available starting with the 5700 afaik).

Upgrading to 1 TB would help resale value and I also think it helps to be able to work directly from internal storage.

I would be really interested in benchmarks of the graphics options though, as I'd like to be able to play the occasional game as well; the new flight simulator release comes to mind...


Lots of great feedback here – and throughout the thread! Really do appreciate everyone's 2¢ 👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spk1
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.