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

Apple Updates iMac Lineup With Up to 8-Core 9th-Gen Intel Processors and Radeon Pro Vega Graphics Options

nihil0 said:
Do you have any info if performance difference between i5-8600 and i5-9600K is dramatic or just minor improvement?
Click to expand...

It seems that the i5-9600K is about 10% faster than the i5-8600, according to this website: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9600K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8600/4031vsm477251.

As they both have the same number of cores, the difference is the same for both single or multi-threaded applications. The difference is not huge, but not negligible as well.
 
Cashmonee said:
That is what is really frustrating. There is no reason this update did not come 6 months ago!
Click to expand...

And it also means that we will not have another update when the 10th gen Core processors come up. Next update is next year in the best scenario.
 
YetAnotherAppleFan92 said:
I'm probably in the minority with this comment, but how come they can still offer fusion drives in these machines and not in the Mini's? It would be nice to still have some sort of option for inexpensive internal storage... not everything needs to be on an SSD.
Click to expand...

It would be nice to have fusion drives with a larger SSD, maybe 256gb...
 
macduke said:
I'm pretty excited about this update! The Intel i9-9900K is a beast of a processor, and looking at Geekbench results for what are likely Hackintoshes seems to compare favorably to the 10-core chip in the iMac Pro on multicore, and is even faster with single core. I ordered the i9 with the Vega 48, 2TB SSD, and 8GB RAM which I am upgrading to 40GB total using matched pairs of 16x2 and 4x2 (included) for an extra $200 or so. It's going to be a great machine which will hopefully last me a long time (5-7 years). I've created a discussion thread over in the iMac forum for users to talk about which configuration they ordered and I go into an explanation of why I ordered what I did: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/what-2019-imac-did-you-order.2173991/.

Compared to an iMac Pro 10-core (again, comparing multicore scores mentioned above) with 32GB RAM (I'll have 40GB), 2TB SSD and Vega 56 I'll be saving nearly $2000 for a machine that has a similar (multicore) or maybe even slightly better (single core) CPU, more RAM, same SSD, and slightly slower GPU. Sure there are higher end options like 10Gbit ethernet, UHS-II SD card slot, and the darker colorway—but I don't think those along with a GPU that is maybe around 15% faster justifies the extra $2000 expense. And actually since it's a desktop why not get a 10Gbit dongle (which I won't need until my current 1Gbps speeds increase in my area) and I already have the Apple USB-C to UHS-II SD card adapter which I've used with my iPad Pro. Overall this is a great upgrade and I can't wait for it to get here!
Click to expand...

I don't think that a Geekbench result will show you the real performance under load for a longer period. The thermal design of the iMac is completely different to the one from the iMac Pro. We need some real world tests to judge this...
 
  • Like
Reactions: chilly willy, cppguy and Novus John
AlexJoda said:
I don't think that a Geekbench result will show you the real performance under load for a longer period. The thermal design of the iMac is completely different to the one from the iMac Pro. We need some real world tests to judge this...
Click to expand...

What i'd like to see someone do is run an app like Prime95 in Windows that can max out the computer and thoroughly heatsoak it, and run geekbench before and after to see the difference.
 
az431 said:
What don't you get? Do you really think the average consumer cares or can tell the difference between 5400, 7200, Fusion, and SSD?
Click to expand...

Oh yes absolutely. Maybe not between a 5400 and a 7200, but definitely Fusion drive and SSD. The 5400 is so horrendously slow that it would be surprising if ANYONE can't feel it. I'm generally pretty forgiving when it comes to these decisions because it doesn't really affect the end user too much, but the HDD on these iMacs is way too slow even for the average consumer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cppguy, jeremiah256, BusanAA and 1 other person
A price drop would be the the most amazing Apple innovation. They start at $1700 AUD here in oz. 27inch starts at a whopping $2,800.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Novus John
Dumb question but does Apple still allow the user to access the RAM on the 27"?

Any what happened to the rumours of a 30 plus inch iMac?
 
The lack of effort to redesign the iMac after a decade, just underscores how little Apple cares about computers. Even the iMac Pro and Mac Mini was simply changing the case to Space grey.
It almost feels like Tim and Jony are resting on their laurels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexGraphicD
With the same cooling design?

l-46420-ah-thats-hot-thats-real-hot.jpg
 
dogslobber said:
What I don't get is that the Mac Mini now is SSD only and spinners were banished forever there. Yet Apple ships its flagship desktop with spinners in the base model. Does Apple not care about protecting their brand image?
Click to expand...
They certainly didn't act like they care when the Mac mini was allowed to stagnate for four years before finally getting that redesign.
 
Garbage. I was hoping for a smaller chin and the new iPad Pro style screen on the iMac. Basically not as thin as the iPhone but pretty damn close. Guess I’ll hold onto my maxed 2013 until a re-design occurs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexGraphicD
satchmo said:
The lack of effort to redesign the iMac after a decade, just underscores how little Apple cares about computers. Even the iMac Pro and Mac Mini was simply changing the case to Space grey.
It almost feels like Tim and Jony are resting on their laurels.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with you, but after the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro redesigns, its probably better they didn't!
 
  • Like
Reactions: kazmac
So I was waiting for a spec bump to buy my first iMac and was happy to see the news. I have to say the one thing that is bothering me is how the i7 is not available for the 27-inch model at all. It is either i5 or i9.

I looked up benchmarks and the i7 comes out dead in between them and seems perfect. I know that I may not even get the full performance of the i9 due to thermals/my workload but does anyone know if the i5 is still decent with MacOS? I only have iPhones so I will be new to MacOS.

My workload will be some light animation (cartoon style stuff with audio), digital art, and programming (at most getting into mobile-app development). Can a 6-core/6 thread 9th gen i5 handle this on well on MacOS? I wont be doing anything super-intensive like 4k video n stuff. (I will be adding my own RAM to get 32GB, choosing the 512 SSD option, and leaving the base 580 graphics) Or will the i9 be worth it given that I may not push it to its limit but it will still be beneficial under medium workloads?

Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back