iMac Pro spec for Graphic & Web Design

[alien3dx]

'Complete idiot' is a bit strong. Designers are often being asked to do more and more these days - from 3D to some video editing, as a freelance I've moved into these areas as I find it even gives you more control (and billing) over projects. Getting more than you need (if budgets allow) means you're not hamstrung by your current set up. Might even encourage people to develop skills if they think it won't be a chore by using a Mac without enough oomph. Also for somebody that has eeeked out a Mac Pro for seven years, this is probably the best Mac to try and do the same with.

as long it paid the bill.. i would said yes...

 

[tomscott1988]

I am in a similar situation, but I decided differently.

I use Lightroom as the primary tool.
I have currently a 6 year old upgradable PC with a 6 core i7 Processor and 16 GB of RAM. I have approx. 150000 RAW photos (growing) in my catalog which is on a separate SSD.

At times I come home from a photo shooting with 1000 to 2000 images.

Importing, rendering standard and 1:1 previews takes hours and editing of photos is slow. I have approx. 150000 RAW photos in my catalog which is on a separate SSD.

I think the extra cores on the iMac Pro will help with the tasks. Adobe products will use MultiCore. The support will certainly increase in the future.

I plan to run a Virtual Windows session as well.

I had historically build my own PC. I participated in the C64 and Amiga area (the competition of Apple at the time).

I am no longer interested to spent hours and hours to upgrade my PC and handle the problems my PC’s have giving over time. Motherboard replaced, hard drive replaced, Cooling fans replaced ... Windows is becoming slower and slower with each update ...

So I am ok with an all in one iMac. I believe the new iMac is improved in many areas and not just what is discussed here like Procesessor, RAM, GPU, SSD.

What has not been mentioned the improved AirFlow which first tests indicate it’s very quiet. Improved camera, audio and external connections.

So people might be right that at this time the i7 iMac might be sufficient for what we do.

But for the extra $1300 for a comparable machine, I am getting current technology with a great looking design. I ordered the 10 cores and I am confident I will see performance boost in rendering etc.

In addition even if some of the components are throttled in the iMac Pro, this just means to me that this machine is made to last longer without failure compared to the i7 system. Only time will tell for sure, but I am taking the risk to see if this All In One will last 6 to 7 years without a hiccup.

Summary:
While in the past I was experimental. Now I am just trying to get something that will just work for the next 6 years (3 years covered with Apple Care). In addition I will enjoy it and it will look beautiful!

Recheck your head and you may follow your heart.

Good luck with your decision.

Your issue is lightroom. Also you should reduce your catalog 150,000 images is far too many especially if you are keeping 1:1 previews no wonder the machine is struggling. I make a new catalogue almost monthly with the amount of work I do to try and keep lightroom responsive.

Lightroom is slow even with the new "speed updates" we have a brand new windows 10 i7 quad rig at the company I work for with a 1080 64gb of ram and it performs almost identically to my 2010 hex 3.46 mac pro. Ram helps tho 16gb just isnt enough, mine has 48gb and it regularly eats through it.

Saying that I shoot weddings/events and regularly come home with 1000/2000 images from a 5DMKIV and 6DMKII and it takes roughly 45 minutes for the 2010 hex to munch through the 1:1 previews which is impressive for an 8 yo machine.

Adobe is just stuffing all of us atm their newest 2018 update has pretty much made illustrator, after effects incredibly difficult to use because they are so buggy and crash all the time.

Throwing money at it will help a little but its not the solution.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but many people dont realise that the server components sound impressive but it doesnt equate to performance. The 5K imac for example is 50% cheaper even maxed out the iMac pro doesnt provide twice the speed, single core is slower and most of the CC apps still heavily use single core. The multicore performance is impressive but again it wont equate to double the performance.

 

[dazzer21-2]

I'm an InDesign/Illustrator/pretty heavy Photoshop/Animate and various file conversion processes among other things kind guy! I have a 16gb 3.3ghz iMac 5K i5. If there's anything that keeps me waiting at all, it's the drive. I have a Fusion drive and although the times I get any beach-balling are VERY rare indeed, it's never what I would really call frustrating. I tend to keep over half my internal drive free and move completed work to external devices - it's fast enough for me and I think that were I to upgrade at all, a 4ghz i7 would be a sweet spot. iMac Pro would be pretty overkill.

 

[Itzamna]

The iMac would be more than enough.
For Web Design you don't need that much power (I'm a Web Designer) and for Graphic Design the iMac with plenty of ram is a perfect good machine. Just get the i7 with SSD and buy some third party 16G B or 32GB ram and save at least 2000$ and you will be set for at least 5 years.

 

[OBirder]

however, that may be a bit dated ( needs to catch of to the LR classic name changes too. ). It looks like 8 maybe the new 6 though in most cases. https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Lightroom-Classic-CC-is-it-faster-than-CC-2015-1065/ They will do a few more but if just through megabucks at super expensive x86 core then generally not getting much return on investment. [ the real story though is the old optimizations in LR weren't very optimized for modern machines at all. ]

...

It make take Adobe another 3-4 years to fully leverage those 10 cores on their mainstream actions. But if you are keeping the system much longer than 3, you'll get a bump on the tail end of service life. I just wouldn't expect it all upfront. [ another illustration if have solid data of a trend, you can perhaps buy a bit ahead of the trend. That is in contrast to just spend more because that will "future proof" in and of itself. ]

The same article you referenced shows that the overall performance of LR CC 2017 is at 100% at 6 core, 124% at 8 core and 133% at 10 cores. So LR does benefit currently from more cores. Over 10 cores the increase is rather small.
However this is compared to 6 cores and not 4 as the current iMac.

This change in performance happened within 2 years. I am certain that support will increase even more and it might be another 2 years.

Again, I am buying a system for the next 6 to 7 years and I just feel with current state of the Art components it will last me for that long. I as well believe that the Pro components not used to their max. have a longer life than the current iMac components using on the upper limit for the next 6 years.
We will have to see what benefits the T2 chip will bring.

Only time will tell us what was best. No risk, no fun ...

 

[OBirder]

Your issue is lightroom. Also you should reduce your catalog 150,000 images is far too many especially if you are keeping 1:1 previews no wonder the machine is struggling. I make a new catalogue almost monthly with the amount of work I do to try and keep lightroom responsive.

Lightroom is slow even with the new "speed updates" we have a brand new windows 10 i7 quad rig at the company I work for with a 1080 64gb of ram and it performs almost identically to my 2010 hex 3.46 mac pro. Ram helps tho 16gb just isnt enough, mine has 48gb and it regularly eats through it.

Saying that I shoot weddings/events and regularly come home with 1000/2000 images from a 5DMKIV and 6DMKII and it takes roughly 45 minutes for the 2010 hex to munch through the 1:1 previews which is impressive for an 8 yo machine.

Adobe is just stuffing all of us atm their newest 2018 update has pretty much made illustrator, after effects incredibly difficult to use because they are so buggy and crash all the time.

Throwing money at it will help a little but its not the solution.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but many people dont realise that the server components sound impressive but it doesnt equate to performance. The 5K imac for example is 50% cheaper even maxed out the iMac pro doesnt provide twice the speed, single core is slower and most of the CC apps still heavily use single core. The multicore performance is impressive but again it wont equate to double the performance.

I think you have a few good points here.

Catalog: It’s not optional for me to have multiple catalogs. I am Wildlife especially Bird Photographer. I need to be able to find upon a request a specific species with attributes e.g. male/female, flight ... for all photos I have for the last 11 years. Closing and reopening multiple catalogs is not practical.
However I keep 1:1 Previews only 30 days and optimize catalog frequently. Once I have the photos I need I move them into a collection and render 1:1 Previews for the final selection and processing. Overall a lot of rendering unlike wedding photographers who are typically done after a wedding which i can see using multiple catalogs.

LR has improved usage of cores quite a bit between 2015 and 2017 and is utilizing e.g. 10 cores with noticeable gain in speed in rendering etc.. Not in development, but here the GPU might help.

I currently have a 6 year old Windows 7 - 6 core i7 machine and even so due to hardware failure in between I reinstalled on a internal SSD from fresh its slow, slow, slow - with each update it’s slower.

My 2015 travel 13” MacBook Pro does switch from photo to photo at the same catalog faster (but not rendering). The difference is even with updates to Sierra and High Sierra the MacBook retained it’s speed, while with each Windows update the system gets slower. That’s the main reason I switch the desktop over to Mac as well. So far it just seems to work without a lot of slow down. The current Mac Pro is not an option and who knows if and when the new one will show up.

While we moved to the current LR with a few bugs but as well noticeable less slow, as you mentioned the rest of the products seems to have a lot of bugs and we kept it at current versions.

In two weeks I should know how much gain in speed I get now compared to my Win 7 system.

But we really would need someone buying a current upgraded iMac 2017 and an iMac Pro to run them side by side and render a 1000 full frame RAW files.

 

[tomscott1988]

The problem is CC runs so differently on each system and for each peripheral and combination. It’s hard to predict and even Adobe couldn’t tell you what to buy.

The same old problems persist with windows that they don’t retain their speed and get bogged down. A format and reinstall makes a big difference. Possibly getting into windows 10, with the lack of Apple progress in the pro department I’ve been using windows a lot more and I have to say I don’t hate it and have got used to it now just more flexible without spending the earth for a standard upgrade.

On the other hand high Sierra has bricked my 2017 MacBook and it runs like garbage now so I have held off installing it on the pro. I find I reinstall OS X every 18 months or so and it does make a difference.

The other issue is going to an higher res 5k display might give the performance another variable. Although a beautiful display it’s a lot more pixels to render. It will take advantage of the GPU, I use a apple Cinema Display which is roughly 2k and the machine runs much quicker with the gpu acceleration off. Same if I switch it out for the windows machine.

I find sharpening, noise reduction and targeted adjustments kill the performance so I usually make a profile to add sharpening and noise reduction last then let it do its thing.

The main annoyance for me is zoom in/out and panning around the shot at 100%. Even running it on a raid 0 ssd running 1000mbs read and writes it struggles.

Casting my mind back to earlier lightroom it never used to struggle doing so with my old files.

Although all this new tech is great in theory lightroom hasn’t been well written or optimised even the 2018 version I have found to be no faster. Same old problem which I refer back to a 2008 Mac Pro 8 core, it never got to the point where software really took advantage of all the power, to the point where it was too outdated and more efficient technology was available.

In the past it has been a better idea to get the fastest cpu for single core you can and the i7 has hyperthreading. At least then you have something to fall back on reason I upgraded my pro from a quad to a hex instead of a 12 as it wouldn’t really make any difference.

I would be really cheesed off to spend twice the amount on a machine to be disappointed the performance isn’t off the chart in the programmes I use.

 

[deconstruct60]

The same article you referenced shows that the overall performance of LR CC 2017 is at 100% at 6 core, 124% at 8 core and 133% at 10 cores. So LR does benefit currently from more cores. Over 10 cores the increase is rather small.

$1,300-1,800 faster for 24%? Is that really worth it? the delta between 24% and 33% is even smaller (for a smaller $ gap but not too much smaller). The 33% isn't necessarily wall clock time for the whole workload. Some of those are spikes in very specific tasks (the standard deviation on the changes is pretty substantial) . Whether it works out depends on hourly billable rate. It there is a ton of time where can't do anything but stare at screen and wait then ths is savings. If can time slice task then it is an a subset.

However this is compared to 6 cores and not 4 as the current iMac.

That is just temporary and iMac isn't only option if budgeting out to $4,999+ price range .

This change in performance happened within 2 years. I am certain that support will increase even more and it might be another 2 years.

LR has been a dog at import for longer than 2 years. Some of this stuff is being fixed in part because standalone LR is going away and they need more sizzle for LR 7 to get folks to upgrade.

 

[OBirder]

$1,300-1,800 faster for 24%? Is that really worth it? the delta between 24% and 33% is even smaller (for a smaller $ gap but not too much smaller). The 33% isn't necessarily wall clock time for the whole workload. Some of those are spikes in very specific tasks (the standard deviation on the changes is pretty substantial) . Whether it works out depends on hourly billable rate. It there is a ton of time where can't do anything but stare at screen and wait then ths is savings. If can time slice task then it is an a subset.

For my first ever RAM expansion of 8 KB (yes KB, not MB and not GB) I paid 400 in 1981 in Europe. Was this worth it? Commodore 64, Amiga systems. Was it worth it?

No, it never calculated by the actual money I made at that moment. But it added to the fun factor and to the knowledge I gained in newer technology which has helped throughout my career.

24% is in relation 6 to 8 core. I would assume to be 50+% in relation to 4 core. Internal redesign, with better thermal, more reliable components, T2 chip, more external ports, ECC RAM, better GPU ... is it worth it?

At the end and important to me is the fun factor and together with the above this makes it worth it for me. Every one has to make their own decision and as it had been discussed and I admit this might not always be rational.

That is just temporary and iMac isn't only option if budgeting out to $4,999+ price range .

Really? If I am done for now with Windows, need a new system, don't want to install and build up my own system as in the past. If I just want a system to work, which 6 core system do you recommend now? The outdated Mac Pro or wait until 2019 Mac Pro or an iMac with 6 cores in 6 to 12 months?

It seems that I am not seeing the same thing you are seeing.

Currently I see a 4 core iMac that agreeable potentially can do the job, but on the end of its life cycle, a Mac Pro past due and iMac Pro with current technology which adds as I mentioned to the fun factor.
For me this was an easy decision which gives me with "pro" components a worry free system probably lasting for 6 to 7 years (with Apply Care a minimum of 3 years).

 

[teohyc]

My 2010 6-core Mac Pro (24gb ram / 1tb ssd) has served me well for many years, but 2018 is the year to finally upgrade.

My work consists of medium to heavy Photoshop design (1-1.5gb files with many layers etc), InDesign layouts and also Wordpress web design.

So my thinking is the base 8-core will suffice, but is 32gb ram enough? I'm hoping this machine will last 5 years so want to future proof where I can. Would more cores and better gpu be wasted on me?

Don't waste your money with the iMac Pro. You won't see significant time savings with the apps you use.

I work with large graphic files too. The current quad core iMac is more than powerful enough to handle those. As for future proofing, ask yourself if your Photoshop files are going to be several times larger in the future. Even if they are larger, you will benefit more from faster storage and memory compared to processing power (because computers nowadays are more powerful than those graphic apps can take advantage of, unless it's a badly written app like Lightroom).

The main reason why one may need an iMac Pro is to save time.

I also work with 4K videos daily and looking at the iMac non-Pro specs, they are still good for 4K work. IMac Pro will save more time, more suitable for those who work with deadlines.

If you want to get the iMac Pro just because it feels more pro, or spending money feels good, then go ahead.

 

[tomscott1988]

http://barefeats.com/hic2_nv_vs_vega.html

Heres another example of how the specs dont compute into real world results... 5k imac pro and the 2010 mac pro will outperform it with the same card due to thermal throttling.

This is just the OpenCL score but some of the others are quite interesting...

 

[alien3dx]

http://barefeats.com/hic2_nv_vs_vega.html

Heres another example of how the specs dont compute into real world results... 5k imac pro and the 2010 mac pro will outperform it with the same card due to thermal throttling.

This is just the OpenCL score but some of the others are quite interesting...

seem the page saying .. EGPU is goody.. but imac 2017 got 2 thunderbolt.. ouch.. only mac pro have 4 i think

 

[tomscott1988]

seem the page saying .. EGPU is goody.. but imac 2017 got 2 thunderbolt.. ouch.. only mac pro have 4 i think

But the 2017 imac has thunderbolt 3 and the nMP has thunderbolt 2. You can put a full size card into a cMP

 

[alien3dx]

But the 2017 imac has thunderbolt 3 and the nMP has thunderbolt 2. You can put a full size card into a cMP

sorry ya cmp mean what ?

1st port -> second monitor
2nd port -> external usb 3.1 gen 2 ssd



At least need 3.. superb + egpu.. but i don't need graphic card for my job

 

[tomscott1988]

sorry ya cmp mean what ?

1st port -> second monitor
2nd port -> external usb 3.1 gen 2 ssd



At least need 3.. superb + egpu.. but i don't need graphic card for my job

Why wouldn't you daisy chain the SSD? Thats the great thing about TB is the the throughput is large so you can run multiple peripherals without maxing the bus.

 

[alien3dx]

Why wouldn't you daisy chain the SSD? Thats the great thing about TB is the the throughput is large so you can run multiple peripherals without maxing the bus.

daisy chain ? mean

At first, i not much require SSD much. Upon reading a lot of here compability high sieera with platter hardisk.. i decided to add bootable ssd..

27 Inchi to big to me.. I used to 2 monitor for my work.. 1st monitor for viewing output and another one for code in xcode/phpstorm..


To find usb C to hdmi quite hard also..The review on apple website itself seem so bad so i don't buy their adapter instead finding shop and test myself.

To find also external hardisk SSD that the also hard. Normal shop didn't knew about it.. Apple authorized store not selling this item..

I also have try usb C pen drive.. yes max speed 150 as advertise.

 

[tomscott1988]

daisy chain ? mean

At first, i not much require SSD much. Upon reading a lot of here compability high sieera with platter hardisk.. i decided to add bootable ssd..

27 Inchi to big to me.. I used to 2 monitor for my work.. 1st monitor for viewing output and another one for code in xcode/phpstorm..


To find usb C to hdmi quite hard also..The review on apple website itself seem so bad so i don't buy their adapter instead finding shop and test myself.

To find also external hardisk SSD that the also hard. Normal shop didn't knew about it.. Apple authorized store not selling this item..

I also have try usb C pen drive.. yes max speed 150 as advertise.

Read about TB3 here:
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/tech/faq

It means if you plug in an external monitor you can plug the ssd into one of the monitors thunderbolt ports... "daisy chain" one port doesn't mean one device. One port allows you to connect 6 devices it has a 40gb/s bus and supports up to 10gb/s of USB C 3.1 as they are backward compatible so there wont be any worries about reducing performance.

As for buying an SSD, just buy a usb 3.1 spec enclosure and put your SSD into it, this is a better option as you can put a new drive in it if your needs change. For example

https://www.pcworldbusiness.co.uk/b...gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CPuD0qSvm9gCFZG1UQodU_QElQ

 

[alien3dx]

Read about TB3 here:
https://thunderbolttechnology.net/tech/faq

It means if you plug in an external monitor you can plug the ssd into one of the monitors thunderbolt ports... "daisy chain" one port doesn't mean one device. One port allows you to connect 6 devices it has a 40gb/s bus and supports up to 10gb/s of USB C 3.1 as they are backward compatible so there wont be any worries about reducing performance.

As for buying an SSD, just buy a usb 3.1 spec enclosure and put your SSD into it, this is a better option as you can put a new drive in it if your needs change. For example

https://www.pcworldbusiness.co.uk/b...gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CPuD0qSvm9gCFZG1UQodU_QElQ

see carefully.. mine usb type c to usb type c (usb 3.1 gen 2) .. not the usb 3.0 to usb type c.. i been thinking also but the price is pricy if combine and lower speed.

 

[tomscott1988]

see carefully.. mine usb type c to usb type c (usb 3.1 gen 2) .. not the usb 3.0 to usb type c.. i been thinking also but the price is pricy if combine and lower speed.

Im not sure what "mine" is. Are you talking about the 2017 iMac a secondary monitor or an SSD.

Thunderbolt 3, USB 3, 3.1 and C are all backward compatible. If you have a USB3 hard drive buy a USB 3 micro B to USB C cable.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/AmazonBasi...d=1513871042&sr=8-3&keywords=usb+micro+b+to+c

 

[OBirder]

http://barefeats.com/hic2_nv_vs_vega.html

Heres another example of how the specs dont compute into real world results... 5k imac pro and the 2010 mac pro will outperform it with the same card due to thermal throttling.

This is just the OpenCL score but some of the others are quite interesting...

So this does confirm for potential current new buyer:

- it’s the fastest Mac GPU you can order today in any official Apple configuration (iMac, iMac Pro, Mac Pro)

- that thermal throttling by 10 to 15% in an iMac casing is a good thing for the life span and reliability of the system

- Using the same card in an external TB3 casing for a current iMac probably will have the same 10 - 15% loss as the thermal throttling.

- If you a current Mac Pro user with a working system, this might be the way to go until a new Mac Pro is available

 

[alien3dx]

Im not sure what "mine" is. Are you talking about the 2017 iMac a secondary monitor or an SSD.

Thunderbolt 3, USB 3, 3.1 and C are all backward compatible. If you have a USB3 hard drive buy a USB 3 micro B to USB C cable.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/AmazonBasi...d=1513871042&sr=8-3&keywords=usb+micro+b+to+c

2017 IMac base line 8 GB 1TB platter hardisk
+ Samsung Monitor 1920 x 1080 hdmi
+ Western Digital Passport Usb C Gen 2 256GB

first port usb c to hdmi -> first monitor

second port usb c -> startup boot

which mean both ..

 

[OBirder]

Sin

The problem is CC runs so differently on each system and for each peripheral and combination. It’s hard to predict and even Adobe couldn’t tell you what to buy.

...

I would be really cheesed off to spend twice the amount on a machine to be disappointed the performance isn’t off the chart in the programmes I use.

I just now saw an early review from last week regarding real world experience with LR CC.

Systems used:
iMac 5K, 4GHZ Intel Core i7 w 32GB RAM
iMac Pro, 3GHZ, 10 Core w 128GB RAM
Both systems with MacOS High Sierra 10.13.2 and the same external 1TB TB3 SSD

788 RAW images total of 50.74GB

Import and 1:1 Previews
iMac – 50 minutes 45 seconds
iMac Pro – 25 minutes 26 seconds

Apply color correction and export as full res JPG's
iMac – 1 hour 17 Minutes
iMac Pro -31 Minutes

Even so this is not the latest 4.2 iMac and a difference in the RAM, I don't think that would significantly change the picture. As I mentioned before I believe the majority is due to the additional cores.

In addition it was mentioned which I am hoping for as well (with thermal throttling) that "This one is EXTREMELY quiet.. possibly the quietest Mac I’ve had of all (except Macbook Airs of course)".

Here is the link to the complete blog post:
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2017/12/12/apples-new-imacpro-has-an-impressive-200-300-speed-bump/

 

[phobos]

Yep from what everyone is saying it seems to be a Mac that is silent even under load. For me this is amazing news.

I have a late 2012 iMac which operates the same way. I could be rendering for days and the fans wouldn’t spin up. So I was always hesitant to move to the newer iMacs where after 20” of rendering the fans would spin up.

So I was kinda hoping the iMac Pro would return to this silent operation.
In this case I’m more than happy to trade off 10% of CPU throttling and 15% or so for the GPU.

Not only it ensures silent operation but it also keeps the internals healthier for longer.
If I had any iMac after 2012 I would be hesitant to leave the machine rendering for days. And if I did I doubt the machine would still be alive.

 

[bplein]

HA now you’ve got me changing my mind again!!! In all seriousness though I’m not going to rush my decision, will give it some thought in new year. I’m not desperate to replace my old Mac Pro so another couple of months won’t make any difference. Enjoy your new Pro, look forward to hearing all about it!!

If you are willing to wait, then do for a month or so. There will be a TON of people benchmarking your favorite apps, letting you know specifically if it will help for you. For example, does this chip support Quick Sync (almost assuredly not) and do you have apps that work better with Quick Sync? That is just one of many unknowns that will be figured out here shortly. It will prove out that the iMac is a MUCH better deal for some people and the iMac Pro is a MUCH better deal for others.
[doublepost=1513921422][/doublepost]

Yep from what everyone is saying it seems to be a Mac that is silent even under load. For me this is amazing news.

I have a late 2012 iMac which operates the same way. I could be rendering for days and the fans wouldn’t spin up. So I was always hesitant to move to the newer iMacs where after 20” of rendering the fans would spin up.

So I was kinda hoping the iMac Pro would return to this silent operation.
In this case I’m more than happy to trade off 10% of CPU throttling and 15% or so for the GPU.

Not only it ensures silent operation but it also keeps the internals healthier for longer.
If I had any iMac after 2012 I would be hesitant to leave the machine rendering for days. And if I did I doubt the machine would still be alive.

For iMacs and Mac minis, I think the worry about long-term high CPU and the associated high fan rates is really around the possibility of fan failure.

If you can keep your CPU under 100C, it's going to run for YEARS. Yes, even at 95C, the CPU should be fine. For hours. For days. For weeks and months. Even for a few years.

But your fan is going to be running at 100%. These little fans will fail faster at 100% than they will at 30%. In fact, I'd throw a "swag" out there that they'd run fine at 30% rpm for years while they'd risk premature failure within a year or so at 100% rpm duty cycle.

The fan is the cheapest weak link in your system.

 

[careenjoseph]

So when Apple's 10-core Xeon W model didn't break a sweat on a similar render -- and almost silently as well -- it made for an impressive demo. But the flip side was that none of its demos showed the processor running for any length of time at 100 percent utilization on all cores. That's something you're less likely to see on an Intel chip with faster clock speeds overall unless you increase the load.

No one needs to convince me about the value of faster, as-many-cores-as-you-can-get processors.