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

Decision time i7 vs i9 for new 2020 iMac?

pldelisle said:
Very slightly for the cache.
Apple probably programmed the i7 TDP to match 95w instead of 125w. The iMac cooling system is made for 95w cpu.
Click to expand...

Yes. the 2020 i7 and i9 in the iMac both have the same 125W TDP with a configurable 95W down TDP.

Intel® Core™ i9-10910 Processor (20M Cache, up to 5.00 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Core™ i9-10910 Processor (20M Cache, up to 5.00 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
ark.intel.com ark.intel.com

Intel® Core™ i7-10700K Processor (16M Cache, up to 5.10 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Core™ i7-10700K Processor (16M Cache, up to 5.10 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
ark.intel.com ark.intel.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZacksWorld
So, in my usual workflow I work with the following apps and they are open at the same time:
Photoshop, Sketch App (UI Design), Adobe After Effects, Adobe Illustrator, Sublime for some front-end-development, chrome with a ton of tabs, PowerPoint and Excel.

I am currently using a 2013 high end iMac.

Based on this, would you guys recommend the i7 or i9?
 
I think either processor could handle that Without issues. just make sure you install extra ram.
 
erg100000 said:
So, in my usual workflow I work with the following apps and they are open at the same time:
Photoshop, Sketch App (UI Design), Adobe After Effects, Adobe Illustrator, Sublime for some front-end-development, chrome with a ton of tabs, PowerPoint and Excel.

I am currently using a 2013 high end iMac.

Based on this, would you guys recommend the i7 or i9?
Click to expand...
The 8 cores is enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mlykke and erg100000
ZacksWorld said:
Disclaimer: I know nothing about this kind of tech, but the i9-10910 has 20MB L3 Cache versus the i7-10700K's 16MB L3 Cache and also has a lower 95W TDP compared to the i7's 125W TDP... Does that make a difference when it comes to this stuff? I don't know! o_O
Click to expand...
pldelisle said:
Very slightly for the cache.
Apple probably programmed the i7 TDP to match 95w instead of 125w. The iMac cooling system is made for 95w cpu.
Click to expand...

Both the 10700K and 10910 are 125W TDP’s. And both in cinebench tests are confirmed to be pulling 145-160W of power when under 100% load.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZacksWorld
quagmire said:
Both the 10700K and 10910 are 125W TDP’s. And both in cinebench tests are confirmed to be pulling 145-160W of power when under 100% load.
Click to expand...
TDP is programmable. Both chips are rated at 125w but Apple could have programmed them for 95w.
TDP is Measured under sustained load I think. Burst load occurring under a certain temperature can make grow power consumption beyond nominal TDP.
 
pldelisle said:
TDP is programmable. Both chips are rated at 125w but Apple could have programmed them for 95w.
TDP is Measured under sustained load I think. Burst load occurring under a certain temperature can make grow power consumption beyond nominal TDP.
Click to expand...

The 9900K last year was limited to 95W, but actually more like 85W as that is the highest the CPU would ever draw under load. This year looks like Apple allowed it to go to 125W TDP given the power draw both chips are pulling.
 
erg100000 said:
So, in my usual workflow I work with the following apps and they are open at the same time:
Photoshop, Sketch App (UI Design), Adobe After Effects, Adobe Illustrator, Sublime for some front-end-development, chrome with a ton of tabs, PowerPoint and Excel.

I am currently using a 2013 high end iMac.

Based on this, would you guys recommend the i7 or i9?
Click to expand...

I agree the 8 core i7 is more than enough.
 
pldelisle said:
Source ?
Click to expand...

Source to what claim?

My 9900K in my iMac 2019 stabilized around 85W when loading it at 100%. My 10700K sees about 155-160W when 100% loaded. The 10910 hit 150W before throttling down to 120W to keep temps down.


So both the 10700K and 10910 likely are 125W TDP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BuCkDoG
BuCkDoG said:
I am purchasing the i7 5700 XT because the i9 just isn’t worth the extra $400. Watch MaxTech’s videos and it will prove to you that you should just buy the i7.
Click to expand...
That's actually one of the reviewers I watched that helped me decide not to go with the i9, but stick with i7 8-Core (which is faster in every respect to last year's i9). Decided to use that $400 to go from the 1TB SSD I had been planning to a 2TB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle Heinemann, BuCkDoG and ZacksWorld
Anyone see testing specific to Handbrake video encoding?

Would the two extra cores in 10-core be more effective than the faster 8-core? Does the Intel chip matter for HEVC encodes when supposedly the T2 takes over?

Thanks in advance for any insight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZacksWorld
BasilFawlty said:
That's actually one of the reviewers I watched that helped me decide not to go with the i9, but stick with i7 8-Core (which is faster in every respect to last year's i9). Decided to use that $400 to go from the 1TB SSD I had been planning to a 2TB.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good move especially if you have to choose between one or the other – yes, you can always expand your storage with drives, and TB3 is very, very fast, but you will probably save more time with the additional internal storage (and higher read/write speeds of a higher-capacity iMac) than you would with the i9 vs the i7... (assuming you do photo and video work, which your profile picture suggests and also I think you mentioned it in a previous thread (or this thread??))
 
jasonefmonk said:
Anyone see testing specific to Handbrake video encoding?

Would the two extra cores in 10-core be more effective than the faster 8-core? Does the Intel chip matter for HEVC encodes when supposedly the T2 takes over?

Thanks in advance for any insight.
Click to expand...
I think your answering your own question. Would two extra cores in a 10 core be more effective than an 8 core? Let me see. Last time I checked 10 is more than 8 so ya lol. We’re only debating the performance increase per dollar as its not worth it. Your gaining roughly 10% performance for $400 dollars more when your increasing the core count by 25% which means the performance increase isn’t linear. 25% more cores for 10% more performance isn’t worth the money to me personally. And your only going to see the difference really if your making out all 8 or 10 of these cores for a long duration of time consistently. However if money is no object for you, get the 10 core and enjoy it.
ZacksWorld said:
I think this is a good move especially if you have to choose between one or the other – yes, you can always expand your storage with drives, and TB3 is very, very fast, but you will probably save more time with the additional internal storage (and higher read/write speeds of a higher-capacity iMac) than you would with the i9 vs the i7... (assuming you do photo and video work, which your profile picture suggests and also I think you mentioned it in a previous thread (or this thread??))
Click to expand...
That is what I did personally. Bought the i7 5700XT and put the $400 “savings” into a bigger internal SSD/RAM upgrades.
 
jobinhosyntax said:
Excuse my ignorance, is it conclusive that the i9 runs hotter than the i7 in the 2020 iMac, or not?
Click to expand...
I don't think so.

The i9 has lower clock than the i7. So under sustained load, both will run at the same temperature (like 99 degrees-ish), but the i7 will be clocked a bit higher than the i9 because it has two cores less.

The independant variable is temperature. The clock speed is the dependant variable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jobinhosyntax
BuCkDoG said:
I think you[‘re] answering your own question. Would two extra cores in a 10 core be more effective than an 8 core? Let me see. Last time I checked 10 is more than 8 so ya lol. We’re only debating the performance increase per dollar as its not worth it. Your gaining roughly 10% performance for $400 dollars more when your increasing the core count by 25%
Click to expand...

Isn’t this theoretical? If Handbrake is not written to take advantage of these higher core counts than the 10% extra performance wouldn’t actually get me better results. That’s why I was looking for testing. Still wondering about the T2 as well.
 
I just got a new i7. This was a move from my early 2009 Mac Pro, upgraded to the hilt. Love it so far. The nano glass was an extra $500 for the 27", and don't really have a reflection issue, so I passed. Put your money elsewhere.
My only complaint?....
This year's Mac, meet last year's cables. Thanks Apple.

IMG_6229.jpeg
 
jasonefmonk said:
Isn’t this theoretical? If Handbrake is not written to take advantage of these higher core counts than the 10% extra performance wouldn’t actually get me better results. That’s why I was looking for testing. Still wondering about the T2 as well.
Click to expand...
I understand what your saying for sure however I would just strongly advise you to buy the i7 and spend your “savings” on other upgrades if necessary. Your just not going to see any meaningful difference worthy enough of your $400 upcharge.
 
So.. any idea what executive decision had them putting an SDXC slot in the back, but nothing for Apple monitors or Thunderbolt 2?
SD USB card readers cost a couple bucks...
 
pldelisle said:
Yep. But it will work 100% flawlessly.
Click to expand...
Not the point... I actually bought one, but saved a boatload of money by returning the entire device that used it (Thunderbay 4 Raid), and the expensive money-grab Apple cable adapter, and buying one with an actual Thunderbolt 3 cable - Free... Do you think we'll we'll see a 5 year life for 3? That was about the shelf life for 2.
 
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