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

Do iMacs run really hot?

yjchua95 said:
If you don't count in the blank screen and time from the  logo, it's just 5-7 seconds. 5 when empty, 7 when it's starting to be half-filled.

I don't count the blank screen because that period may well be the EFI searching for the boot drive and/or loading other stuff in the background. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is that the PCIe is blazing fast.

Out of curiosity, what's the brand of the installed SSD ( model number and brand )

Thanks.
 
yjchua95 said:
If you don't count in the blank screen and time from the  logo, it's just 5-7 seconds. 5 when empty, 7 when it's starting to be half-filled.

I don't count the blank screen because that period may well be the EFI searching for the boot drive and/or loading other stuff in the background. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Mine boots is less than 1 second. I don't count the activity up to 1 second before the desktop appears, because that is just OSX doing things that don't matter. ;-) LOL

Also, what are these PCIe SSD's? I have never heard of those. <sarcasm mode off>

More seriously, I am not doubting you have an uber-machine (nor questioning your manhood), but I do think it is a silly distortion to discount part of the boot process from your timings.

Still, 11 seconds from cold is pretty good. It's similar to my 2011 Mac Mini with SSD installed internally. For some reason my 2012 iMac has never booted as fast as the 2011 Mini.

The excellent transfer rates of PCIe SSD's doesn't actually improve boot times by very much because no big files are being transferred at boot time. It's all about i/o's per second and that's why SSD machines boot so much faster than hard disk based systems: The access times and max IOPS are so much improved. The maximum transfer rate - the area in which PCIe based is better than sata-based - is really not that relevant. That's only going to make a difference when transfering big files for video editing or whatever.
 
Last edited:
Chippy99 said:
Mine boots is less than 1 second. I don't count the activity up to 1 second before the desktop appears, because that is just OSX doing things that don't matter. ;-) LOL

Also, what are these PCIe SSD's? I have never heard of those. <sarcasm mode off>

More seriously, I am not doubting you have an uber-machine (nor questioning your manhood), but I do think it is a silly distortion to discount part of the boot process from your timings.

Still, 11 seconds from cold is pretty good. It's similar to my 2011 Mac Mini with SSD installed internally. For some reason my 2012 iMac has never booted as fast as the 2011 Mini.

The excellent transfer rates of PCIe SSD's doesn't actually improve boot times by very much because no big files are being transferred at boot time. It's all about i/o's per second and that's why SSD machines boot so much faster than hard disk based systems: The access times and max IOPS are so much improved. The maximum transfer rate - the area in which PCIe based is better than sata-based - is really not that relevant. That's only going to make a difference when transfering big files for video editing or whatever.
Click to expand...

On my Sandy Bridge MBP, the Samsung 840 Pro can handles IOPS of 90k-100k. This is much higher on the PCIe-based SSD in my two iMacs.

I think you should Google up PCIe-based SSDs and why are they faster than any normal SATA3-SSDs.

EDIT: For clarification, please view this video of my 21.5" Haswell iMac starting up: https://www.dropbox.com/s/oqc4q8j3rfgdc1q/IMG_2903.MOV
As you also have an SSD-equipped Mac, I don't have to say that immediately after logging in you can start opening apps without delay straight away.

If you think I have maxed out my Macs just to inflate my ego, you're dead wrong. I shoot and edit 4K videos for some income, as well as shooting photographs, so it's absolutely vital that I have a fast Mac.
 
Last edited:
yjchua95 said:
On my Sandy Bridge MBP, the Samsung 840 Pro can handles IOPS of 90k-100k. This is much higher on the PCIe-based SSD in my two iMacs.

I think you should Google up PCIe-based SSDs and why are they faster than any normal SATA3-SSDs.

EDIT: For clarification, please view this video of my 21.5" Haswell iMac starting up: https://www.dropbox.com/s/oqc4q8j3rfgdc1q/IMG_2903.MOV
As you also have an SSD-equipped Mac, I don't have to say that immediately after logging in you can start opening apps without delay straight away.

If you think I have maxed out my Macs just to inflate my ego, you're dead wrong. I shoot and edit 4K videos for some income, as well as shooting photographs, so it's absolutely vital that I have a fast Mac.
Click to expand...

Having worked in IT for 31 years, I really don't need to google about PCIe SSD's thanks. I am surprised you do not realise that data transfer rate is not the most important factor with respect to boot times. As you will doubtless understand, a 5 disk raid array with transfer rates much higher than your SSD will not boot the system anything like as fast as a plain old sata SSD will.

It is of no concern to me what you use your Mac for. I merely pointed out to IA64 that your Mac doesn't "boot" in 5 to 7 seconds, which I maintain is correct. (I don't need to see any videos either).

I won't even get into a debate about it being "absolutely vital" either. That's your choice. But really I wonder how many people are working in a high pressure time-critical environment where a few extra minutes here or there is "vital". Not many. That a system is plenty fast and pleasant to use without causing excessive delays and frustrations, is of course sensible. Beyond that, for most, in reality it's about ego and bragging rights, (and of course free choice) but not necessity.

Still, it's a free country. Glad you enjoy your Mac.
 
Last edited:
Chippy99 said:
Having worked in IT for 31 years, I really don't need to google about PCIe SSD's thanks. I am surprised you do not realise that data transfer rate is not the most important factor with respect to boot times. As you will doubtless understand, a 5 disk raid array with transfer rates much higher than your SSD will not boot the system anything like as fast as a plain old sata SSD will.

It is of no concern to me what you use your Mac for. I merely pointed out to IA64 that your Mac doesn't "boot" in 5 to 7 seconds, which I maintain is correct. (I don't need to see any videos either).

I won't even get into a debate about it being "absolutely vital" either. That's your choice. But really I wonder how many people are working in a high pressure time-critical environment where a few extra minutes here or there is "vital". Not many. That a system is plenty fast and pleasant to use without causing excessive delays and frustrations, is of course sensible. Beyond that, for most, in reality it's about ego and bragging rights, (and of course free choice) but not necessity.

Still, it's a free country. Glad you enjoy your Mac.
Click to expand...

Well Chippy, I understand that. The Promise Pegasus R6 sitting behind my iMac can top that if I replace every drive in the bay with SSDs. Budget constrains prevent me from doing so, and so I've stuck back to the 7200rpm drives in it, which give around SSD speeds already. Good enough for external storage and working from it.

Of course I wouldn't understand about it (the part where you say about transfer rates not being the most important factor in boot times), because I'm just a teenager at Cambridge studying for my university exams. When I enter my third and fourth years there, that's when I may be fully exposed to it, because only then, I'll be focusing on my CS major.
 
Last edited:
yjchua95 said:
Of course I wouldn't understand about it (the part where you say about transfer rates not being the most important factor in boot times), because I'm just a teenager at Cambridge studying for my university exams. When I enter my third and fourth years there, that's when I may be fully exposed to it, because only then, I'll be focusing on my CS major.
Click to expand...

You are starting to embarrass yourself mate.
 
yjchua95 said:
Samsung SM0512F 512GB.

----------



That's your opinion, it's a free country. But I don't give a rat's ass on what you think of me. You're entitled to your thoughts.
Click to expand...

And you are entitled to post what you like. But when people start showing off on forums, it can be a bit cringeworthy. Still, up to you eh.

Best wishes.

EDIT: Oh good grief, I just noticed your signature:

__________________
4 MBPs (1 13", 1 maxed early-2011 2.3GHz 15", 1 maxed 2.7GHz 2012 retina 15", 1 2010 17"), 2 maxed Haswell iMacs (high-end 21.5",high end 27"), 2 Mac Minis, 2 12-core Mac Pros, 1 maxed Haswell 13" MBA


Now I fully understand.
 
Last edited:
Chippy99 said:
And you are entitled to post what you like. But when people start showing off on forums, it can be a bit cringeworthy. Still, up to you eh.

Best wishes.

EDIT: Oh good grief, I just noticed your signature:

__________________
4 MBPs (1 13", 1 maxed early-2011 2.3GHz 15", 1 maxed 2.7GHz 2012 retina 15", 1 2010 17"), 2 maxed Haswell iMacs (high-end 21.5",high end 27"), 2 Mac Minis, 2 12-core Mac Pros, 1 maxed Haswell 13" MBA


Now I fully understand.
Click to expand...

Mister, not all of them are mine. Some of them are my dad's, but I use it half the time.
 
AndrewMRiv said:
Hello, all.

I only started using Macs at the end of 2010 so I have not experienced as much hands on experience as all of you. Playing around at the Apple store can only do so much for me, haha.

My only real Mac has been a MacBook (white, mid 2010). Other than that, I also have a Hackintosh which has both OS X and Windows installed on it.

It was fun building it and all, but in a couple of years I am looking into buying Mac desktops and the beautiful iMacs are my best bet since the Mac Pros are a bit overkill for what I do.

For gaming, I would probably just continue to build PCs for it, but with Apple and OS X, I always loved the ease of use and no longer wish to tinker around with the Hackintosh world and just have a computer that works well.

I do a lot of music recording for my band, video editing for musical projects and other stuff as well, I use a lot of photoshop for work, etc. On top of that, I do A LOT of multitasking (iTunes, iMessage, Calendar, Notes, iWork, etc.)

Since I'm really going to be pushing my computer, I was wondering how well the iMacs handle the power users.

Am I better off with a Mac Pro or will an iMac be okay? I have heard some rumors that they overheat easily and other that have had their iMacs growing strong for years.

Will it run hot while doing intense multitasking? Thank you.
Click to expand...

This was one of my concerns when I bought my iMac in August of 2013. Thus far I have never heard the fans come on and there are times its on 8 or 9 hours.....of course I do do not play video games or video editing.
 
AndrewMRiv said:
I do a lot of music recording for my band, video editing for musical projects and other stuff as well, I use a lot of photoshop for work, etc. On top of that, I do A LOT of multitasking (iTunes, iMessage, Calendar, Notes, iWork, etc.)

Since I'm really going to be pushing my computer, I was wondering how well the iMacs handle the power users.

Am I better off with a Mac Pro or will an iMac be okay?
Will it run hot while doing intense multitasking? Thank you.
Click to expand...

I do pro audio on MAcs since 1998. I replaced a 2009 MacPro with the imac in my sig.
1) I tested extensively for where the fan comes off its base 1200rpm. This is between 50% and 75% of total CPU load. Up to that point the heat sinking inside the imac works great and the CPU will steadily go from idle (35degC) to 90degC (for me ~50% total CPU load). But since I am a pro audio guy what I really care about is loading from ProTools. Using that I can go to 75% total CPU load and still be in the mid 80degC range - meaning - fan still at 1200rpm. Great - my intense sessions never get past 40%.

2) I routinely have 4 to 8 things open at a time - get enough RAM and this is no issue

3) This is the fastest - quietest (at load) - most capable mac I have ever owned. By all measures we know so far - the quad MacPro will be very similar in performance.

4) My opinion - the i7 imac would easily do what you are looking for. The nMP has faster storage, faster ram, way more powerful graphics, more TB ports, TB2 ports and may (or may not) be quieter at higher loads. If any or all of this matters certainly go with a nMP
 
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