Intel's Coffee Lake Chips Bring Significant Speed Boosts to 2019 iMacs

[gertruded]

For reference to all the negative comments, My mid 2007 20" IMac is in service every day. That counts for me and counts big.

 

[JTBing]

Where's the guy who was raging about the baseline 21.5 model coming with an i3 now?

 

[Greymacuser]

Hackintosh users have known this for a while now.
That's why we built our desktops with coffee lake chips already.
At a fraction of the cost of an iMac.

 

[lunarworks]

A counter to all the bitter complaining here:

There's nothing wrong with the 2019 iMac (5400 rpm HDD and pricing aside) when it comes to being an AIO aimed at its intended target market. It packs more than enough power in that regard.

The problem is that people outside of that target market are buying these iMacs, and that's because the iMac Pro is priced like a damn Ferrari, and there's currently no suitable desktop for power users.

 

[mcnallym]

Thermal throttling. Overclocking the CPU would (and does) make the iMac an absolute joke.

Also, why do the iMacs come with overclockable versions of their processors when they can't be overclocked on a Mac anyway?

Show me the i9 9th Gen that isn't an i9 k overclockable,

There are

i9 9900K 8 Core overclockable version
i9 9900KF 8 Core overclockable with no iGPU installed
i9 8950HK 6 Core High Performance iGPU ( laptops )

If Intel don't make a non-K version of the i9 then really don't see what is so difficult to understand why Apple put an Overclockable version in.

 

[jallove7]

For reference to all the negative comments, My mid 2007 20" IMac is in service every day. That counts for me and counts big.

Nice! Still rocking my base model 2009 27” iMac core 2 duo. Does everything I need it to (although getting sluggish with my iPhoto library). I am not a pro user, but it amazes me that I still enjoy using my 10 year old desktop and it’s gorgeous screen daily. (Updated with an SSD). Now just biding my time to get the next base model to last another 10 years. (SSD only of course, don’t know why anyone would ever touch an HDD with a 10 ft stick in 2019). Was hoping for an updated design, who knows how long that will take.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Thermal throttling. Overclocking the CPU would (and does) make the iMac an absolute joke.

Also, why do the iMacs come with overclockable versions of their processors when they can't be overclocked on a Mac anyway?

Clock speed, pure and simple. The -K versions have always had higher clock speeds than the non-K equivalent and Apple believes in clock speed, at least for the top of the line iMacs. From the moment Apple switched to Core i3/i5/i7, they have equipped the top BTO iMac with the fastest Intel CPU. Despite your bluster, Apple does care about performance, just not the way you want them.
[doublepost=1553819929][/doublepost]

Show me the i9 9th Gen that isn't an i9 k overclockable,

There are

i9 9900K 8 Core overclockable version
i9 9900KF 8 Core overclockable with no iGPU installed
i9 8950HK 6 Core High Performance iGPU ( laptops )

If Intel don't make a non-K version of the i9 then really don't see what is so difficult to understand why Apple put an Overclockable version in.

Intel still has not filled out the complete 9th Gen product portfolio. It’s actually taking longer than the 8th Gen rollout, but I think that has more to do with Intel’s 14nm production woes.

 

[dspdoc]

No updated thermal architecture -- CHECK (this is very important so it needs this one again)

Cite your source. Have you pulled one apart yet? Funny, I am sitting here with my brand new i9 machine right now and this baby runs as cool as a cucumber, even under heavy load. So you were saying?

 

[Zdigital2015]

Cite your source. Have you pulled one apart yet? Funny, I am sitting here with my brand new i9 machine right now and this baby runs as cool as a cucumber, even under heavy load. So you were saying?

The new IHS (Integrated Heat Spreader) seems to be making a bigger difference than even I thought it would. I suppose time will tell, but the results are very encouraging from what I am reading.

Careful, you are ruining their narrative. Next will be the demand for a 24-hour transcode or export that MUST run at full Turbo Boost the entire time or else it means the iMac is crap...

 

[dspdoc]

The new IHS (Integrated Heat Spreader) seems to be making a bigger difference than even I thought it would. I suppose time will tell, but the results are very encouraging from what I am reading.

Careful, you are ruining their narrative. Next will be the demand for a 24-hour transcode or export that MUST run at full Turbo Boost the entire time or else it means the iMac is crap...

LOL, you are spot on!

 

[thelead]

That 9900k must throttle like crazy in an iMac. That thing is tough to tame with ANY air cooler on the market.

 

[iSayuSay]

for just 25% faster, we don't care about the hassle

For me personally, buying an iMac is actually more of the hassle. Owned 2 iMacs for almost 10 years and I see only problems after problems. I know its weakness inside and out.

Dirty, smudged display after months of usage (very infamous problem and requires LCD replacement, at least officially), gpu failure, overheating (and throttling) under heavy load. You name it, I had it. It’s a desktop class components fitted into laptop class chassis. What did I expect.

And, the one thing that annoys me most, any simple failure (like HDD failure) in that sexy looking thing, the whole computer goes down. Lugging it around for servicing isn’t fun at all. It’s called all-in-one for a reason.

Yep bought a desktop PC and actually it’s a freeing experience. I can handle my own hardware, simple repairs should remedy most problems without tearing down the whole case. Still love my new Macbook Air though.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Nice! Still rocking my base model 2009 27” iMac core 2 duo. Does everything I need it to (although getting sluggish with my iPhoto library). I am not a pro user, but it amazes me that I still enjoy using my 10 year old desktop and it’s gorgeous screen daily. (Updated with an SSD). Now just biding my time to get the next base model to last another 10 years. (SSD only of course, don’t know why anyone would ever touch an HDD with a 10 ft stick in 2019). Was hoping for an updated design, who knows how long that will take.

HDDs are great for those who need cheap, high capacity storage. But I wouldn’t advise anyone to buy the $1,099/1,299 21.5” iMacs without springing for at least the Fusion drive. It’s worth the extra $100. (There are some use cases where an HDD would be fine.)

 

[ThisBougieLife]

Couldn't care less.

No larger screens with slimmer bezels -- CHECK
No updated thermal architecture -- CHECK
No PCIe-flash across the board -- CHECK
No 16GB RAM as standard -- CHECK
No 120Hz ProMotion -- CHECK
No Face ID - CHECK
No True Tone Display -- CHECK
No 1080p Webcam -- CHECK
No Tx Security Chip -- CHECK
No Space Grey option -- CHECK
No backlit keyboard -- CHECK
Tim Cook still there -- CHECK

Some of those are more important to me than others, but I really don't get why there's no backlit keyboard. That could've been done years ago. A backlit keyboard is a must for me. I hate having to use a 3rd party keyboard (I'm an Apple purist). Hopefully they are just getting ready for an actual redesign within the next year.

 

[Rocketman]

1971 19371 typo, probably more

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Couldn't care less.

No larger screens with slimmer bezels -- CHECK
No updated thermal architecture -- CHECK
No PCIe-flash across the board -- CHECK
No 16GB RAM as standard -- CHECK
No 120Hz ProMotion -- CHECK
No Face ID - CHECK
No True Tone Display -- CHECK
No 1080p Webcam -- CHECK
No Tx Security Chip -- CHECK
No Space Grey option -- CHECK
No backlit keyboard -- CHECK
Tim Cook still there -- CHECK

I couldn’t care less that you couldn’t care less.

What you seem to want is the next iMac Pro but with a downgrade to 16 GB RAM, presumably at regular iMac prices, and régime change to boot.

Make a serious comment and then maybe we’ll care that you don’t care.

 

[seeforyourself]

IMHO, go for the 8 core if you need the power, otherwise the 3.0Ghz. The 3.1Ghz is entirely pointless and the 3,7Ghz hexacore is only 200 bucks cheaper than the octacore core -which even outperforms the hexacore in single thread benchmarks despite lower clock.
View attachment 829124

That $200 is an impressive difference. I think its a no brainer to get that.

 

[Chancha]

Cite your source. Have you pulled one apart yet? Funny, I am sitting here with my brand new i9 machine right now and this baby runs as cool as a cucumber, even under heavy load. So you were saying?

Please elaborate what exact "heavy load" the machine were doing, preferably with screen shots of Activity Monitor and sensor monitoring apps like Intel Power Gadget or iStat Menus.

 

[calstanford]

So all the mighty intel could manage in 24 months is a 6% performance increases (single core. Of course multi core speed increases when you erm add erm more cores!?)

 

[serialtoon]

Now do a disk speed test

 

[jasnw]

And, the one thing that annoys me most, any simple failure (like HDD failure) in that sexy looking thing, the whole computer goes down. Lugging it around for servicing isn’t fun at all. It’s called all-in-one for a reason.

And this is why I'm hoping my 2009 27" iMac hangs in there until Apple brings whatever the modular Mac turns out to be to market.

 

[macduke]

Geekbench isn't that useful if your PC can't handle the heat well which we'll face it in the new models probably. I prefer to see Cinebench results after consecutive runs.

Check this article for the expected i9 performance on new iMac;

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13591/the-intel-core-i9-9900k-at-95w-fixing-the-power-for-sff

I can surely say, it won't go higher than this.

Truly innovative and embarrassing, Apple.
Six months late to the game, and, this is what you have to show for yourself!? Geekbench is actually a benchmark that doesn't highlight thermal limitations, yet, my 9900k Hackintosh puts out ~35k multicore, and ~6.3K single core on 2133MHz ram with no optimizations. Clearly, the 9900k is being held back in the iMac.

Overclocked, and with 3200MHz ram, I'm seeing ~40K multicore, and ~ 6.8k single core. This is on air, and a tight, quiet case.

Curious to see Cinebench, and all the thermal throttling! Didn't you learn from the i9 MBP, Apple? And, where is the Radeon VII for the "Pro" model?

Nothing beats Apple's polish, but, it always comes at a cost. Grab Cinebench R20, and let us know your processor score. You could also grab Intel Power Gadget, and see what frequency it settles to as the load reaches steady-state.

I got a 1662 in Cinebench R15:



And a 4067 on Cinebench R20:



Is that any good? I didn't even hear my fans ramp up. I'm not even joking about that. I can make a video if people don't believe me. The only time I heard it ramp up was during setup when I was installing Creative Suite while downloading Microsoft Office and syncing 150GB over LAN from my Dropbox while running a Time Machine backup and it only ramped up moderately for about a minute.

Thoughts guys? I've been on MacBook Pros since 2008 so I haven't bothered with benchmarking in ages.

Oh, and here is my Geekbench which seems to beat the average: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12589531

Ninja edit: I saw some results for the iMac Pro on R15 which show the Cinebench scores seem in line with the lower two models.
[doublepost=1553834690][/doublepost]

Yes, I agree. I am only worried about cooling these bad boys. On one hand it will suck less energy than any 7th gen CPUs for sure, but on the other, we're talking high amounts of CPU frequencies here. I am very curious to see.

See what I just wrote above. So far seems quiet in benchmarks.

 

[James Bondo]

At this point, I wish that Apple would take OSX and either open-source it (yeah right) or sell it.
The same with their hardware line, though I don't care nearly as much about that as it stands today (which is why I wish Apple would let someone have it who cared about it.

I get that iPhones make more money for Apple than every other division combined, and why they've focused their company on it. I have an iPhone.... I get it.

But I love OSX. I've been running it since 10.2. It is UNIX. It is beautiful. It works without all the fiddling that Linux distros require. It runs most of Microsoft's software, Adobe's software, Omnigroup's software, and iTerm.... I could go on and on.

But it only runs on Apple's hardware. And that is my problem, because as far as I can tell, no one in the decision making tree of Apple uses PC's for anything other than emails, calendars, and consuming content. That is why they think people can do their jobs with nothing but an iPad. Or even a Macbook (not to be confused with a Macbook Pro.)

Because if they did, they wouldn't have soldered RAM in a desktop, even an All-in-one desktop. They wouldn't totally ignore the Mac Pro. They wouldn't have removed function keys from their laptops, and I'd like to think they'd have kept a model with a real keyboard.

Let alone the Mac Mini BS.

So, again. For me, the best case scenario is for Apple to let someone else make hardware for OSX. Ideally by open sourcing it (which would be great for the entire world), but more realistically by selling it or licensing it to other manufacturers.... Anything other than being forced to choose between hardware designed for someone that uses their computer absolutely nothing like I do, or using a different OS.

 

[Voyageur]

No Bluetooth 5 -- CHECK

No user replaceable RAM (21in) -- CHECK
No user replaceable storage -- CHECK

I would talk about such things in a whisper so as not to wake the ancient evil. Imagine that in the future they will not only not add the ability to improve RAM at 21.5, but will also remove this ability from 27 model. And it is quite possible, given the experience of iMac Pro. Moreover, if I were Apple and continued its policy, I would have done just that.

 

[EightyTwenty]

No Bluetooth 5 -- CHECK
No fan filter -- CHECK
No adjustable height -- CHECK
No matte screen option -- CHECK
No user replaceable RAM (21in) -- CHECK
No user replaceable storage -- CHECK
No updated thermal architecture -- CHECK (this is very important so it needs this one again)

Matte screen on an iMac?

*pukes*

No thanks! They don’t belong on a consumer AIO. No interest in grainy text, washed out colors, and greys instead of blacks.

Matte coating can even make OLED look like trash.