They may not get much of a benefit from a high end GPU now but in another 5 years the 5700 XT won't seem that high end and its possible that Adobe will have updated their code to take advantage of GPUs with that level of performance.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2020 iMac: Suggested Upgrades for a Graphic Designer?
- Thread starter stew278
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They may not get much of a benefit from a high end GPU now but in another 5 years the 5700 XT won't seem that high end and its possible that Adobe will have updated their code to take advantage of GPUs with that level of performance.
It’s usually wiser to buy based on what you know, not trying to guess what may happen. The fact is, the minimum required VRAM for Adobe Premiere suite is 2GB, OP would absolutely get the 5-7 years use that they want out of an 8GB 5500 XT. They just don’t need very powerful graphics for what they do.
Plus, the GPU is now one of the easiest components to upgrade via an eGPU. If the worst case scenario happens and Adobe apps suddenly start utilising significantly more GPU power then OP can get an enclosure and a better card when the time comes for the same cost as the upgrade right now. But, the chances of them even needing to do that are slim.
In every other Mac I have owned, the GPU has aged the fastest (after the hard drive in my 2009 Mac). I wouldn't call Adobe utilizing more GPU power a worst case scenario but I wouldn't buy an eGPU for an iMac. They are expensive and don't work very well from the reviews and benchmarks I saw while researching a possible Mac Mini purchase. They perform particularly poorly if you don't drive the monitor via the eGPU which is impossible with an iMac. Personally I would have preferred a Mac Mini with an external monitor over the iMac. The lack of a decent internal GPU is the one of the reasons I did not.
The only component that can be easily upgraded on the new iMac is the RAM so my approach is to spec it above my present requirements for GPU, CPU and SSD. I would rather buy too much performance than too little. That said I don't have to worry about how well Adobe utilizes the GPU since I stopped using their software when they switched a subscription model.
You’re right about eGPU usage but the fact remains that for what OP is doing, the GPU isn’t going to age very fast. By the time OP needs that level of GPU power they’re most likely going to be replacing the whole iMac anyway. We’re just not going to see that massive of a jump in such a short space of time.
From 2013 to 2020 the minimum requirement jump for VRAM in Adobe apps when from 512mb to 2GB. Any 8GB card will be plenty for Adobe apps for the next decade.
Definitely upgrade to a 1TB or 2TB SSD. You can use external but TB3 models are expensive, and you’ll want the local scratch space. I do a lot of stuff on a NAS but I still need fast, plentiful storage for scratch disks and big projects.
Strictly speaking, you don’t need a 10-core CPU. I’d look at upgrading to 8 core if you can, because that will help with a lot of Photoshop’s stuff. But I would prioritize GPU and SSD over processor.
Honestly, even the base model GPU is going to be good, but if you can step up a level, that will obviously future proof you more. Any of the 8GB options are fine. You don’t need the 16GB 5700XT unless you plan on gaming or doing some 3D work.
Strictly speaking, you don’t need a 10-core CPU. I’d look at upgrading to 8 core if you can, because that will help with a lot of Photoshop’s stuff. But I would prioritize GPU and SSD over processor.
Honestly, even the base model GPU is going to be good, but if you can step up a level, that will obviously future proof you more. Any of the 8GB options are fine. You don’t need the 16GB 5700XT unless you plan on gaming or doing some 3D work.
One more thing — I’m not sure I’d pay the $500 for the nano texture. It depends on the type of work you do, but since you’re coming from an iMac, I don’t know the matte effect is worth the clarity trade off. Again, it depends on what type of content you create.
When I was evaluating an XDR, as beautiful as the matte was (and I love a good matte screen), the slight fuzziness was something I couldn’t quite overcome. If you have any ability to see it in person first, I would do that before spending the $500.
It is absolutely lovely, but other than upgrading the RAM myself, it’s the one upgrade I didn’t get because I think I’d get annoyed.
When I was evaluating an XDR, as beautiful as the matte was (and I love a good matte screen), the slight fuzziness was something I couldn’t quite overcome. If you have any ability to see it in person first, I would do that before spending the $500.
It is absolutely lovely, but other than upgrading the RAM myself, it’s the one upgrade I didn’t get because I think I’d get annoyed.
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
I am a full time photographer wife a full time graphic designer we have macs and a PC here
my pc I hate but use it for capture one it has a 7820x CPU and the gpu is a 1080 FTW that I overclock mainly for capture one
she has a Mac mini with a Radeon rx580 in a egpu setup I use a older mac Pro and we have another Mac Pro for daily stuff as its outdated
so my only comparison would be between these two GPU (rx580 and 1080) and the PC having a much stronger CPU would be about the same or close enough as the base 5500vs the higher end 5700 GPU
in our testing the PC with higher end did not help over her rx580(various adobe programs she uses) if I remember one HUGE AI file and we are talking huge from a client that had no clue about NOT embedding every full size image etc... was a touch quicker on the higher end PC in opening if I remember but in general I decided the RX 580 was fine for her GPU when we built it up for her last year but I can easily upgrade that if we get adobe to make the GPU more useful
short quick I would say for adobe the base GPU would be fine and I have been holding my breath for years for adobe to use GPU properly but they never do
as a photographer using capture one YES the higher end GPU will be better but again how much ? No idea until someone does a C1 bench with both ? And I am thinking it might not matter that much
I will leave the video and coding to those folks
I do think its a safe $$ if you can spare it over the life in case you get into video figure $500 more over 5 years 100 a year is close enough to round to $10 a month that alone might be worth having in case you get into video ?
As far as the matte glass ? I would buy a benq sw2700 for $600 and have a better monitor for color accuracy and it has a hood and is matte (color is great out of the iMacs but not as accurate as BenQ (or has been this way have not seen or tested the 2020 screen) and having two monitors is always better then one so yeah skip the anti glare
my setup would be the 8 core and the 5700XT if ya can swing it with 1 TB drive for OS and use a external SSD fastest/largest you can afford That works with about how much working files you use now double that and you should be good (say you have about 1TB of client files all the time get a 2TB) and spinning discs for archive and 32 or 64 gigs memory(3rd party of course) I find I get close to maxing 32 gigs with PS files but its easy to check how much memory you use on files so this is like saying I need more cheese on my pizza its all personal at this point BUT if I did 32 to start I wold get two 16 gig sticks and keep the stock 8 that way IF you want to go to 64 its just buying two more sticks DO NOT BUY 4x8 gig sticks
Last edited:
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.
Along the same lines of most of the comments, but maybe worth repeating...
Choose the highest model, base version (although Max the Russian (?) YouTube reviewer says you can go with middle and upgrade the processor). 8gb RAM, buy the RAM yourself for around $250 instead of a $1000. It takes less than 10 minutes to install. 64gb is the sweet spot, and you save $750.
Regarding the nano glass, $500 is a steep price (even though it is far less than the other screens with the tech). What is unknown is the longevity (cleaning). Also, there seems to be (have not seen it in person) a subtle difference in the contrast. I never want anything mucking about with what I see, and in most cases if you are directly in front of a lit screen reflections are not a huge issue (I am sitting next to two large windows as I type this). When I do color post processing I have blackout shades anyhow. But if you work in an area where this was a concern maybe that $500 is worth it. YMMV.
Processor. I went with the 3.8/8-core. Two reasons... one, I am moving from a late 2012 iMac that still chugs along and can manage a 1.5tb Aperture library with around 125k images. I use Photoshop, Quark, InDesign, web design programs, etc. and use the machine professionally. This will be a huge jump. Secondly. The 10-core may have some heat issues, as the cooling system seems less robust than what is on the previous iMac Pro (and this new one is faster). Also, most of my programs won't benefit from the additional two cores. Not worth the $400.
Video, base 5500Xt with 8gb. Same deal as processors, most of my apps won't benefit from the additional bump in the video card. I don't do video work or 3d rendering, or gaming. Not worth the $500.
SSD size. 2tb no question for me. ALL of my working files are already pushed to external Thunderbolt or USB3 drives already, but you need free space or things start to fall apart. General rule of thumb is not to push your storage space past 75%, and you will likely have this for 5 years. Photoshop and other programs need scratch space, and Time Machine and CarbonCopyCloner etc, need hidden space for disk snapshots. Whatever you think you need, double it. 2tb for $600? Worth it!
10 Gigabit. Maybe for future proofing, or if you are running a NAS. Otherwise, you will have to both upgrade your network and probably fork over some extra $$ for the bandwidth (unless you are already on fiber). For me, not worth the $100.
Extended keyboard. No question! Worth the $30. I use key commands and it gives me more options for my shortcuts, and I always spec this option.
AppleCare. Worth the $169. I hate extended warranties, but this is worth it just for the phone support. I was STILL getting phone support for my 8 year iMac long after the 3 years.
This came to just under 3k ($2929), plus the $250 for the ram, and $169 for the AppleCare. Plus tax. Use your AppleCard and get 3% back, and also you can get 0% interest for 12 months. If you can get a student/education/non-profit discount, that will save you a few hundred too.
Some of these points may be open to debate, but I am confident this configuration will be fine for the next 5 years +. Good luck!
Sound advice, and the painful truth. On another point, how is working in CaptureOne? I need to sadly migrate from Aperture3. Either going to use Photos, C1 or (ugh) Lightroom. I need something that can handle 1-2tb libraries, and offer extensible plug-ins (pshop, NIK suite, other apps), and also handle the round-tripping (edited images update automatically in image library without exporting/re-importing). Catalina is supposedly it for A3 (but there is a library hack), it definitely won't be running on BigSur and beyond.
Even in 5 years I wouldn't count on it, especially with the switch to AS happening now. Adobe does not update their code if they don't have to. I've been a 20 year Photoshop user and in 20 years not a lot has changed.
That said with the switch to Apple Silicon expect the Intel version/part what ever you want to call it of Photoshop and the other Adobe programs to be on the back burner as far as new performance goes. Adobe will not put a minute of resources into updating anything for X GPU in an Intel Mac.
Which is exactly why they switched to a subscription model. Folks started skipping upgrades every year and went with every 2-3 years instead. For every new feature, most of it was silly bloat. I have used Photoshop professionally since 1.0, and the subscription model is what happens when folks get lazy, greedy, or both.
Exactly. I used Photoshop 5.0 and 5.5 for I think 6 or 7 years before moving to CC. Now you get 2 features you might use a few times once a year for $120.
True; Adobe will focus a lot of their resources into porting over and working with the new chips. But... there will still be years of transition over between the two (for both companies). It was the same story with the switch from PPC to Intel, and from 32 bit to 64... I cannot fathom Adobe screwing itself that badly by not supporting these machines for the next 4-5 years, and as far as performance goes, and pissing off the creative industry that badly. Plus, I've never really heard Photoshop tout performance in any upgrade (as in runs x-times faster while taking up less space on your machine) – just new features.
Remember too, that in the industry, it's not just what creatives might have or upgrade to – it's also all the vendors, etc. that counts. There's a ton of money down the supply chain, and that means a ton of support for those legacy versions. Things don't just turn on a dime, and I don't expect this switch to ARM to be any different.
Adobe has been working on iOS/iPadOS versions of many of their apps for years, mainly Photoshop, Lightroom and Illustrator. These will be the first to be ported natively without the need for translation with Rosetta 2. The video apps will likely be the very last in the line.
Really great stuff here in this post, @mlblacy. Thank you!
Sounds like we're about in the same camp with the machines we're currently running. Obviously, this represents a big jump from where we are at. And like you, my machine holds up fine for 90% of what I do – even if the fan use has gotten progressively more constant lately. I've been reading too that there may be heating issues with 10 cores, so thank you for stating your thoughts on that. I certainly don't want to have a machine's fan constantly on, like mine does at the moment (drives me insane). I do wonder where you get your information from that most of your programs (and mine?) WON'T benefit from additional cores? Do you mind posting some links about that?
I'm leaning more towards the 5500XT GPU, similarly thinking along your same lines. I am bouncing back and forth between the 1TB and 2TB HD. The idea did cross my mind about working off an external SSD, but I wonder about performance with that? I guess I might try it down the road and see how it goes. The benefit I thought of would be then I would have my work with me at all times – which can be an issue. I don't want to sacrifice performance though over convenience. Also, re: 1TB v 2TB (v 512GB) ... I know that scratch disk is key to Photoshop performance, and having local storage space is better. Plus the apps never get smaller in size. I'm comfortable now with 2TB on my old iMac... maybe ponying up for the 2TB SSD because I saved money in other areas makes sense...?
Off topic, but you mentioned it: I purchased in the last year+ a Logitech MX Master 2S mouse and their Craft keyboard. Love both. Wouldn't go back to Apple's versions. I also have a Wacom, which I'm hoping I can utilize a patch to make it still usable. If not, perhaps a new one next year. Just my 2¢ on the peripherals, for what it's worth.
Thank you again for your well-reasoned analysis
Greatly appreciated.Most professionals may do "some" real work on their iOS devices, but very little. This is more about expanding their client base than providing actual enhanced functionality to the professional or prosumer market. How many of us have been clamoring for Photoshop on their iPad? Lightroom?? Not really digging Adobe's approach or attitude (or billing) these days.
Really great stuff here in this post, @mlblacy. Thank you!
Sounds like we're about in the same camp with the machines we're currently running. Obviously, this represents a big jump from where we are at. And like you, my machine holds up fine for 90% of what I do – even if the fan use has gotten progressively more constant lately. I've been reading too that there may be heating issues with 10 cores, so thank you for stating your thoughts on that. I certainly don't want to have a machine's fan constantly on, like mine does at the moment (drives me insane). I do wonder where you get your information from that most of your programs (and mine?) WON'T benefit from additional cores? Do you mind posting some links about that?
I'm leaning more towards the 5500XT GPU, similarly thinking along your same lines. I am bouncing back and forth between the 1TB and 2TB HD. The idea did cross my mind about working off an external SSD, but I wonder about performance with that? I guess I might try it down the road and see how it goes. The benefit I thought of would be then I would have my work with me at all times – which can be an issue. I don't want to sacrifice performance though over convenience. Also, re: 1TB v 2TB (v 512GB) ... I know that scratch disk is key to Photoshop performance, and having local storage space is better. Plus the apps never get smaller in size. I'm comfortable now with 2TB on my old iMac... maybe ponying up for the 2TB SSD because I saved money in other areas makes sense...?
Off topic, but you mentioned it: I purchased in the last year+ a Logitech MX Master 2S mouse and their Craft keyboard. Love both. Wouldn't go back to Apple's versions. I also have a Wacom, which I'm hoping I can utilize a patch to make it still usable. If not, perhaps a new one next year. Just my 2¢ on the peripherals, for what it's worth.
Thank you again for your well-reasoned analysis
Let me see if I can find where I gleaned my performance info from. I pretty much read every review and watched the video ones as well. I did read a bit of conflicting info, but mostly because the machines just dropped.
I was actually going to get the 4tb, as I thought I was well into the 2tb range on my 3tb drive. However, I had a bunch of ghost backup files from Time Machine and CarbonCopy. Looks Like I am under the 1tb or maybe a little over. The SSD size was the easiest part.
Both the CPU and the video card were tough decisions, as I like to future proof my purchases. I always had tower boxes until I switched over to the iMacs when the 24" came out. My reasoning was for half the cost I could afford to upgrade every two years worst case. Reality is most machines plugged alone for 5-7 years, and at that point software is usually the problem. I have been coddling Aperture3 for easily two years, and the library is so large I can't copy it, or even back it up to the Vault (it just kills the finder after a few days). CarbonCopy saved my life on that front.
I have stuck with the Apple mice for better or worse, but honestly the extra button baffles me, lol.
@mlblacy Thanks for your thoughtful post. It is helping me spec a new iMac for a photographer friend. My current thinking pretty much matches your specs. But I’m curious what you think about going with the 1TB internal SSD and the @279.75 OWC Express 4M2 SSD enclosure and a 1-2TB NMVe “starter” stick?
OWC Express 4M2 SSD Enclosure - Thunderbolt 3
Four easy-to-access NVMe M.2 SSD slots customizable for any workflow with up to 32TB of capacity and up to 2800MB/s performance. Includes a 1 year warranty.
eshop.macsales.com
Thanks in Advance — GetRealBro
I have been using it since day 1 so I love it I used Lightroom a lot also as we used to do a lot of post for other pros and return the catalogs to them
I did use aperture a bit just to know it but never used it for my own work
like many the tethering is top notch in C1 and I do a lot of tethering and I think the layers and ease of getting to a good image are what work for me I never say one thing is superior but it can be superior for a user
C1 uses a GPU very well as in very well
something adobe should learn from !!where it helps speed of output and smoothness of sliders etc.... there was a good thread on the C1 forums but they redid the forums and not sure where the thread went ?
my background was a commmercial guy ( from Maui did resort and architecture) turned wedding guy (Maui and weddings big money) now on mainland burnt out on weddings and doing pets
www.chaddahlquist.com but I do pets very well hahahahaha and I do events which I like kinda like weddings without the brides !so here is my take I tend to not use libraries but each job has its own folder and setup
also I firmly believe in the edit in PS I go back to film days so I think of the raw out of C1 as developing the negative and the print is going into PS to finish and that is where I then use any plugins or other itemus so sadly not to good at giving advice on the integration of raw plugins
really its shoot tethered get the pics down and edit the raw then bring into PS never again to go back into the raw side
my overall personal stuff I do use LR for its catalog function as I think it does a good job with DAM for the most part I do compare it every few months with fav edits out of C1 and it just takes so much and I just never like the color control or lack of layers and so on in LR ?
wish I could be more help on that round trip my own flow does not require that ?
Funny, I work with a professional photographer and just convinced him to bump from the 1tb to the 2tb (he was almost considering the 512gb). Everyone's situation varies, but... I think the whole advantage for the SSDs is the speed they offer for apps and the OS (not the storage amount). Usually external storage can function on a slower connection like USB3 (even though I have a bunch of tbolt drives as well as USB3s. So, I would still still choose a 2tb over a 1tb (even with the $600 price bump). I look at the options and decide which ones I can easily skip (Apple ram, nano finish), then deal with the harder storage, processor and video. Originally I was in the upper 3k range, but squeaked it down by killing the 4tb drive, and the base processor and video on the upper tier. I honestly don't think my workflow will suffer. MOST people aren't able to think or work faster than their computer can process, and my 7 year old machine is still doing the job. It's all about perspective... I still have nightmares of waiting 45-60 minutes for a 45mb Syquest drive to copy 45mbs (yes, mb's lol).@mlblacy Thanks for your thoughtful post. It is helping me spec a new iMac for a photographer friend. My current thinking pretty much matches your specs. But I’m curious what you think about going with the 1TB internal SSD and the @279.75 OWC Express 4M2 SSD enclosure and a 1-2TB NMVe “starter” stick?
OWC Express 4M2 SSD Enclosure - Thunderbolt 3
Four easy-to-access NVMe M.2 SSD slots customizable for any workflow with up to 32TB of capacity and up to 2800MB/s performance. Includes a 1 year warranty.
Thanks in Advance — GetRealBro
I was considering adding an external SSD for one of my image libraries, but would want at least 4tb (which is pricey). I am probably going to add two large USB3 drives, 16-20tb, one for work, one for backup, and then another new thunderbolt drive to hold the image archives. The OWC SSD enclosure looks interesting. I guess it depends on what you need to put on it. Also, it would end up being around $500-600 for the system with 1 or 2tb to start (unless my math is off). In theory, adding drives to an enclosure sounds great as you need more space. However, I look at failure points, and most drives (or power supplies or enclosures) eventually fail. I usually mothball my drives after a number of years, and always immediately if any of them start showing any signs of wonkiness. Most drives will give some sort of warning signs before they die (if you are lucky). My two cents.
First off, banging work! Pet stuff tends to be the butt of jokes, as are weddings (but the real joke is that shooters laugh all the way to the bank). Seriously nice stuff! Love your postwork and your family portraits are beautiful, would be curious to hear more (not on this thread) on your workflow and processing.I have been using it since day 1 so I love it I used Lightroom a lot also as we used to do a lot of post for other pros and return the catalogs to them
I did use aperture a bit just to know it but never used it for my own work
like many the tethering is top notch in C1 and I do a lot of tethering and I think the layers and ease of getting to a good image are what work for me I never say one thing is superior but it can be superior for a user
C1 uses a GPU very well as in very well
where it helps speed of output and smoothness of sliders etc.... there was a good thread on the C1 forums but they redid the forums and not sure where the thread went ?
my background was a commmercial guy ( from Maui did resort and architecture) turned wedding guy (Maui and weddings big money) now on mainland burnt out on weddings and doing pets
so here is my take I tend to not use libraries but each job has its own folder and setup
also I firmly believe in the edit in PS I go back to film days so I think of the raw out of C1 as developing the negative and the print is going into PS to finish and that is where I then use any plugins or other itemus so sadly not to good at giving advice on the integration of raw plugins
really its shoot tethered get the pics down and edit the raw then bring into PS never again to go back into the raw side
my overall personal stuff I do use LR for its catalog function as I think it does a good job with DAM for the most part I do compare it every few months with fav edits out of C1 and it just takes so much and I just never like the color control or lack of layers and so on in LR ?
wish I could be more help on that round trip my own flow does not require that ?
You work like one of the shooters who works for me. He tends to dump into folders, and not deal with the library end of things. He shoots, and I do the post work (we work in tourism). He has had need or wants to tether, but I never have. I tend to work in the realm of keywords, folders and smart albums. Aperture is/was a magnificent application, and a workhorse for me. Roundtripping is critical, and the usual tradeoff is the DAM can't deal with layered files. So, a NIK edit would be a flattened tiff or jpg. Run the extension launched from pshop and you get a separate layer for each filter "rotation". I do most of my post work in NIK, which was first Nikon, then Google, then DXO. I was a bit disappointed that DXO did little beyond OS compatibility when they launched their versions. Also, they claim not to offer the round tripping, but that may not be accurate (they were baffled by the need to do so, even when I explained the craziness of exporting to work, and then reimporting to the library as separate steps).
Photos may have improved enough to muddle through. As long as it is robust enough to deal with large libraries and a large number of images. It has the advantage of being able to read an Aperture library without essentially importing every image in (like OnOne or LR).
I use the Adobe pack all day long (mostly Illustrator, Photoshop, Indesign and Dreamweaver, and less After Effects for short animations).
I have a 2017 iMac i5 with 8gb and Radeon Pro 575 and it is still quite fast.
If I have to upgrade today with the 2020 iMac I would go with the high end (i7 + 8gb + 5500 XT) with the 1TB SSD upgrade, nothing more.
The nano glass is something good (I didn't see it in person) but I don´t have reflections in my work environment, so maybe there you can save some money in case you don´t REALLY need it. Another user says that the nano finish make the text a little blurry? If that is the case I wouldn't buy it.
I have a 2017 iMac i5 with 8gb and Radeon Pro 575 and it is still quite fast.
If I have to upgrade today with the 2020 iMac I would go with the high end (i7 + 8gb + 5500 XT) with the 1TB SSD upgrade, nothing more.
The nano glass is something good (I didn't see it in person) but I don´t have reflections in my work environment, so maybe there you can save some money in case you don´t REALLY need it. Another user says that the nano finish make the text a little blurry? If that is the case I wouldn't buy it.
Unfortunately, most of the info was cobbled together gleaned from a bunch of forum posts, video reviews, and random text reviews. Here are a few points with the highlighted timelines. Folks like us who primarily deal with still work and page layout, and not the video editing/gaming/etc, have less robust needs. My two axioms are always, buy the best you can afford (you will be using it for probably 5+ years). Make intelligent trade-offs if you are trying to trim the $$ down. With our work, the biggest bottleneck is the human one. We can only work/think so fast. I trimmed down things like the nano screen & ram to save $1250, that money is put together for new large external drives, and an AirPod Pro with noise cancellation (key these days!).
Rene Ritchie’s review:
-6:45: On the GPUS, talks about programs that specifically are optimized for the cards (like Final Cut Pro X)
-10:59: talks about the SSD sizes, recommends 1-2Tb.
Max Yuryev’s review:
-4:13: interesting Geekbench chart, with a 2x difference between the 5500XT/8gb and the 5700XT/16gb.
-5:50: A bit later he recommends the base 5500XT for 4k video. He says he doesn’t have the 10 core in hand yet, but two questions are heat, and the actual performance difference (heat concern is one of mine, both with the CPU and the GPU… unlike the iMac Pro, this doesn’t have as robust of a cooling system, but is faster).
-At 8:44 he specifically gives advice on which setup you should buy.
-10:46: GPU. Bigger on the 16gb if you can afford it, and if your workload needs it. Most folks are Ok with the base 5500XT/8GB. RAW video processing might want the 16gb.
-11:26: CPU: only a 17% increase at best. Heat may reduce the performance to only a 10% bump for $400. This seems clearer cut.
Handy chart for Photoshop performance settings: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-photoshop-cc-performance.html
“The speed of the computer’s central processing unit, or CPU, limits the processing speed of Photoshop. Photoshop generally runs faster with more processor cores, although some features take greater advantage of the additional cores than others. However, you’ll get diminishing returns with multiple processor cores: The more cores you use, the less you get from each additional core. Therefore, Photoshop doesn’t run four times as fast on a computer with 16 processor cores as on a computer with four cores. For most users, the increase in performance that more than six cores provide doesn’t justify the increased cost.”
Dave Lee’s review:
John Gruber hasn't done at https://daringfireball.net hasn't done a review yet. He is a pretty measured voice, and I am hoping to see that soon. I have heard enough to make my choices, hope some of this helps!
Max just dropped another review here:
Last edited:
If you want hard data to show the difference between the 5700 and 5700 XT for your exact uses you need to wait. You're asking for opinions on something that just came out so I can only offer what on paper make sense to buy. Wait until all reviews start coming in which will take time...the problem is few are going to order the 5700 because as I stated it doesn't make sense price wise when there is a 16GB card for another $200. To sum up most people are either going to stick with the base 5500 which is a great card or spring $500 for the 16GB card which is a beast. Few will spend $300 extra for the 5700.
I haven't seen anyone recommend the middle option. Already ordered mine with the base 5500XT, shipping went from 1st week in September to next week. Trying not to overthink this.