i5 or i7 -- Which runs cooler under light loads?

[Fishrrman]

After 6+ years of using my trusty and reliable 2012 2.6ghz i7 Mini, I'm thinking about moving up to the 2018 model.

My use case:
- Browsing, email, data manipulation (non audio/video)
- Some lightweight video editing (just 1080p at this point, perhaps some -light- 4k editing in the future using FCPx).
- NO games (I don't touch them, no interest at all)
- Display will be (for now) 1080p, perhaps a 32" 1440p display in the future. I probably won't be moving up to a 4k display any time soon, if at all.

So... as you can see... it won't be pushed anywhere toward its limits often.

I'll buy an Apple-refurbished unit this time, give that route a try.
I'll choose one with 16gb of RAM (from Apple) and a 512gb SSD.

I had originally decided on the i5 CPU (Intel Core i5-8500b), but I'm open to buying the 3.2ghz i7 instead (Intel Core i7-8700b). It looks like the i7 offers about a 20% increase in performance vis-a-vis the i5 -- worth paying for in a computer that I hope will last 6, 7 possibly 8 years "down the road". Buying the i7 version of the 2012 certainly helped keep it running smoothly.

So... the question:
Which of these CPUs will run cooler in day-to-day light/medium usage?

 

[madrag]

I can tell you that my i7 3.2Ghz (512GB, 32GB RAM) in day to day, is at about 38°C, rarely goes over 44°C (I'm talking about medium temperatures).

I can't hear the fan, and it works wonderfully (I also came from a 2012 2.6ghz i7 Mini).

As for the i5, someone else will probably pitch in, and tell you their temperatures.

 

[F-Train]

I’ve owned both an i5 and an i7. I don’t think that there’s a meaningful difference in temperature for “day-to-day light/medium usage”.

Assuming that you want to know what your video looks like, I don’t understand how you’re going to edit 4K video without a 4K display.

 

[toke lahti]

I’ve owned both an i5 and an i7. I don’t think that there’s a meaningful difference in temperature for “day-to-day light/medium usage”.

Assuming that you want to know what your video looks like, I don’t understand how you’re going to edit 4K video without a 4K display.

You do understand how people edit 20+Mpx photos without having a 20Mpx display?

 

[harriska2]

Mine is from 80-180 max temp, I think at one of the cores using istat menu with 40” 4k monitor.

 

[F-Train]

You do understand how people edit 20+Mpx photos without having a 20Mpx display?

Yes, I do. Among other things, I regularly edit very large scans of my 8” x 10” negatives.

I also edit 4K video.

In my experience, they are not analogous, although it’s interesting that professional still photographers are increasingly opting for 4K displays. If you edit both large still photos and 4K video, and find otherwise, please share your experience. If you print your stills to paper as well as look at them on a display, even better. That would be more useful to everyone than talking at me like I’m obviously stupid.

 

[toke lahti]

Yes, I do. Among other things, I regularly edit very large scans of my 8” x 10” negatives.

I also edit 4K video.

In my experience, they are not analogous, although it’s interesting that professional still photographers are increasingly opting for 4K displays. If you edit both large still photos and 4K video, and find otherwise, please share your experience. If you print your stills to paper as well as look at them on a display, even better. That would be more useful to everyone than talking at me like I’m obviously stupid.

I edit small photos and only hd video.
But for the last 20 years, me and many others have been able to edit hd video without 1:1 pixel reference monitor. Either in source/viewer side or program/canvas side.
Of course it's nice to have pixel perfect & gamut perfect picture. But you can live without having it all the time.
Just like editing with laptop only, and just like editing high rez photos, you just zoom in when necessary.
Why do you need 1:1 pixels when printing photos to paper?

 

[archer75]

i7 all the way. Especially for video editing.