RiMac - CPU or SSD upgrade?

[sharon22]

LOL you sure took that hard for someone who doesn't mind being corrected...

Darn right!

That stuff I put at the end of my post (the nonsense about not having an ego, etc.), well, I just put that there in order to sound pious hahahaha

 

[thekev]

Well, mister shmister, I was reading your post, admiring how smart you are...
UNTIL I GOT TO THE PART where you said I'm dispensing bad advice!

You nearly made me spill my bowl of Captain Crunch!
[edit: actually you DID make me spill some, there is a Captain Crunch particle on my keyboard!]

Sorry about that. I hope nothing got inside of it.

Why on EARTH is it 'bad advice?' The GPU is ABSOLUTELY the brains and the guts required to make them's pixels do their dance!

Heck, do you know about Apple's architecture? They port a LOT of normal stuff that normal processors do work on OVER to the GPU to handle the load! For example, those "2D" icons all over your screen (I can already tell, you're a Yosemite person LOL)... all those "2d" icons are actually 3-D icons! With the third dimension being invisible! (I know I'm explaining that in non-technical terms... but you know what I mean). So, where, like, a PC is displaying a real two-dimensional square, Apple's operating system is actually displaying a CUBE (using the GPU, instead of CPU), but with the "depth" part of the cube invisible. Pretty cool, huh!

So, instead of relying on the PROCESSOR for lots of things that processors are usually relied upon, it's the GPU that's being relied upon!

Here's my "Let's see you substantiate what you say":
https://developer.apple.com/library...L-MacProgGuide/opengl_intro/opengl_intro.html

If you have a problem with Apple, or if you still think what I'm saying is wrong, let's see your Poker hand.

p.s. As I say, over and over, and over in nearly all my posts, I really don't know what the h*ll I'm talking about, I'm usually wrong, and I really don't mind being corrected. Life is a learning experience. I don't have a big ego about being wrong, and thusly corrected, so no worries, mate!

I'm aware that Apple uses more than a single pass in those, but no I'm not on Yosemite. I avoid new versions of OSX until I have the time to test all of my software on them.

Just to be clear, we are talking about the options that are actually available with the retina imac. Apple has to use a gpu with more power than is really needed to simply refresh ui elements and draw windows on top of windows. Otherwise software that makes extensive use of expensive openGL calls (any kind of outer product computation) would grind to a halt.

In case you're wondering, it irks me when people tell others to allocate additional funds for a new machine in a way that is not really efficient. The GPU may be a great upgrade for gaming, but if it was in fact the weak link in providing a lag free UI, that would be bad design. Note that even when this topic came up with the 2012 rmbps, those still used graphics switching. Much of the time they were using the HD 4000.

 

[sharon22]

In case you're wondering, it irks me when people tell others to allocate additional funds for a new machine in a way that is not really efficient.

I understand, and, you may be totally right. Here's my logic: there are quite a few posts in this forum about their Retina iMacs stuttering, lag, etc., and I'm thinking that if you take one of those stuttering iMacs, and stick the Faster GPU into it, I would almost bet that the stutter would go away. But, truth be told, we'll never know.

I doubt that an SSD would make the stutter go away, and I doubt more RAM would help. That leaves only 2 things: the processor, and the GPU (and, of course, the possiblity that the OS has 'issues').

So, if it were me, I would definitely put the fastest GPU into it.

But, to each his own, you may be totally right.

More importantly, the Captain Crunch has been removed, successfully, from my keyboard.

All is well!

 

[redheeler]

In case you're wondering, it irks me when people tell others to allocate additional funds for a new machine in a way that is not really efficient. The GPU may be a great upgrade for gaming, but if it was in fact the weak link in providing a lag free UI, that would be bad design. Note that even when this topic came up with the 2012 rmbps, those still used graphics switching. Much of the time they were using the HD 4000.

You're right, OS X Yosemite on my 2012 15'' rMBP is still perfectly smooth on the integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics. Even Mission Control, strangely enough it does not lag all that much. Graphics switching is a great battery saving feature since the dedicated graphics chip eats battery a lot faster than the integrated graphics.

 

[thekev]

I understand, and, you may be totally right. Here's my logic: there are quite a few posts in this forum about their Retina iMacs stuttering, lag, etc., and I'm thinking that if you take one of those stuttering iMacs, and stick the Faster GPU into it, I would almost bet that the stutter would go away. But, truth be told, we'll never know.

I doubt that an SSD would make the stutter go away, and I doubt more RAM would help. That leaves only 2 things: the processor, and the GPU (and, of course, the possiblity that the OS has 'issues').

So, if it were me, I would definitely put the fastest GPU into it.

But, to each his own, you may be totally right.

More importantly, the Captain Crunch has been removed, successfully, from my keyboard.

All is well!

There are certainly different potential bottlenecks even in terms of interaction with the gpu. I pointed out that it's unlikely to be bottlenecked by floating point math. If it's lagging on basic things it's likely to be a matter of pushing bandwidth limits, in which case they would have to deal with that by means of software that doesn't exacerbate the problem any more than necessary. There are other things such as film judder due to screen refresh rates not being a direct multiple of typical playback framerates eg 24FPS vs 60hz. In either case moderately faster computation is not likely to alleviate lag that when it comes to computationally trivial drawing tasks. Even with UI elements that may contain mesh data, you don't have to deal with rotations or repeatedly testing whether normals are forward facing. Here are a couple examples of computationally expensive math,
and this is the equation that was used as a basis for seamless cloning algorithms.

To be fair I'm not sure if anyone has come up with an OpenGL poisson solver. Anyway regarding things like ssds and ram, ssds do load files considerably faster, and ram mitigates a lot of stutter if it's in use. You can get an idea whether you would benefit from more by checking swap. I can't remember with Lightroom but a lot of Adobe applications allow you to specify the amount that the application may grab from the heap.

You're right, OS X Yosemite on my 2012 15'' rMBP is still perfectly smooth on the integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics. Even Mission Control, strangely enough it does not lag all that much. Graphics switching is a great battery saving feature since the dedicated graphics chip eats battery a lot faster than the integrated graphics.

Given that my 17" has the dreaded 2011 AMD problems, I think my next notebook is going to be one with integrated graphics. I have access to hardware with a little more power when I need it.

 

[redheeler]

Given that my 17" has the dreaded 2011 AMD problems, I think my next notebook is going to be one with integrated graphics.

Heard about that, sucks to be you Hope that AMD is putting better quality GPUs in the Retina iMacs nowadays.

 

[paelzersebbi]

Ok, back to topic.

To illustrate my decision making process:

I saw the display in-store and it is indeed really beautiful. I know that I could get the 2013 iMac almost full-specs for the same price, but I want to keep the machine at least 5 years and I don't want to think for the next 5 years "Damn, why did I not get the Retina display!?". I also cannot wait for the next RiMac generation. My Early 2011 MBP left me unexpectedly because of the well known GPU failure, I'm stuck with an old Windows machine right now and I wanted to get a Desktop computer next year anyway.

If Apple had dropped the 2013 27" iMac entry price I wouldn't have considered the Retina iMac. But at the moment, I can get a 20% discount through my employer resulting in the following options:

1) iMac 2013, i7, 8GB Ram, 780M, 512GB SSD = 2300€

2) RiMac i5, 8GB Ram, 295X, 256GB SSD = 2300€
3) RiMac i5, 8GB Ram, 295X, 512GB SSD = 2550€
4) RiMac i7, 8GB Ram, 295X, 256GB SSD = 2500€

My budget is 2500€, but I would be ok spending 50€ more...

I could live with the 256GB SSD, I had the same size SSD in my MBP and I have a huge NAS. And since there is USB 3.0, I can always add some affordable local storage.

Right now, I'm strongly considering option 4, but I'm still thinking about the other options.

I have two or three weeks left to make my decision...

 

[Sirmausalot]

No doubt the CPU. The Fusion drive has an SSD in it, so you are already getting one. And if you want more SSD space/speed, you can add it externally later on with a Thunderbolt drive and still realize your speed dreams (even go RAID for those multiple 4K streams). You can never swap out that CPU. For encoding video (and other tasks) you want the highest powered CPU you can get.

The Retina iMac is a multimedia beast designed for Video editing and graphics professionals. For those of us who need it for those tasks, GPU Upgrade is essential (295X and the 4GB of RAM on the card matters!), CPU next, then Harddisk (I'd go for the 3TB Fusion). The RAM should be upgraded later as a third party upgrade. To reiterate, you can always add an external SSD later for less money. And anyone who tells you there will be a noticeable speed difference between an external and an internal SSD is wack.

 

[paelzersebbi]

I will swap the Fusion Drive for the 256GB SSD, it is a free upgrade (or downgrade capacity-wise) but I am strongly against mechanical hard drives.

My only concern with i7 and 295X is heat (and the subsequent noise) during everyday use, i.e. office, web, light photoshop/lightroom tasks, VLC media player, editing video (not exporting) and so on.

When exporting video, playing games and other more intensive stuff, I don't mind the noise, it comes with the tasks. I'm just worried about regular non-demanding tasks... some of the threads here are driving me crazy...

 

[Sirmausalot]

If you are spending that kind of money of the computer, you will regret the small sized SSD. Either the 512SSD or the 1TB Fusion.

 

[paelzersebbi]

As I already mentioned, I have a 6TB NAS and for the last 3 years I was ok with my 256GB SSD in my MBP.

 

[Mindinversion]

External drives of the speed that the internal ssd runs at are expensive, sometimes more than the internal from Apple. If you need 1tb for your programs then all the more reason to get it internally.

It's the part where John Q Consumer [non gamer] would actually NEED 1 TB of storage specifically for programs that I can't wrap my brain around.

You MIGHT be able to make the case of offloading large movie editing projects, etc, but again, we're talking John Q Consumer here...

I have a 6TB NAS

^^

You can never swap out that CPU.

Technically not true, as the CPU is not soldered to the Motherboard, though i'd tend to agree it's not generally worth the trouble.

Source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLJN4S5nJ6E

 

[sharon22]

Right now, I'm strongly considering option 4, but I'm still thinking about the other options. I have two or three weeks left to make my decision...

I'm right there with you.

Retina, for iMac is brand new technology. I would go with Option 5:
Option 5: Wait ONE more Apple Hardware Update cycle.

If there are any current bugs, they'll be worked out.

 

[redheeler]

I'm right there with you.

Retina, for iMac is brand new technology. I would go with Option 5:
Option 5: Wait ONE more Apple Hardware Update cycle.

If there are any current bugs, they'll be worked out.

But then you'd miss out on being an earlier adopter

Yes, it won't be perfect until OLED becomes available in a few years. If you want to wait that long you can. Wanting a desktop machine and coming from a rMBP, I could not

 

[sharon22]

But then you'd miss out on being an earlier adopter Yes, it won't be perfect until OLED becomes available in a few years. If you want to wait that long you can. Wanting a desktop machine and coming from a rMBP, I could not

Well, if you DO get the Retina iMac, and you DO get the maxed out specs (e.g. 4.0ghz processor, upgraded GPU, etc.)., I think you'll be sittin pretty! Because you'll have all the hardware needed to make such a beautiful screen run beautifully! I was at the Apple Store again yesterday, and I compared the Retina side by side with another 27", and I googled for a very HD Youtube Video (it was one of those super high definition Duran Duran VEVO shows directed by David Lynch, brings even my super-fast PC to it's knees), and ran the Youtube videos side by side, full resolution and The Retina iMac was GORGEOUS. (Of course, I know watching YouTube videos doesn't stress-test macs that much, it was mostly because I wanted to watch HD movies other than that boring default iMovie thing of that family skateboarding LOL

 

[paelzersebbi]

Ok, I think I made a decision.

Since I cannot wait for the 2nd gen RiMac (MBP Early 2011 is dead! I don't have a Mac right now!!!), I'm going to get the RiMac with GPU and CPU upgrade and I will exchange the 1TB FD for the 256GB SSD.

Any final thoughts?

 

[fathergll]

Ok, I think I made a decision.

Since I cannot wait for the 2nd gen RiMac (MBP Early 2011 is dead! I don't have a Mac right now!!!), I'm going to get the RiMac with GPU and CPU upgrade and I will exchange the 1TB FD for the 256GB SSD.

Any final thoughts?

If you have a good external storage then 256 GB is perfect. Personally im leery about the CPU and GPU upgrade do to the temps.

 

[nrubenstein]

Ok, I think I made a decision.

Since I cannot wait for the 2nd gen RiMac (MBP Early 2011 is dead! I don't have a Mac right now!!!), I'm going to get the RiMac with GPU and CPU upgrade and I will exchange the 1TB FD for the 256GB SSD.

Any final thoughts?

IMHO, the right choice.

 

[paelzersebbi]

I talked to someone at Apple and they told me that for my purposes i5 and 295X is really enough power since I don't edit huge 4K Videos and I don't plan to.

So what do you think?

After that call, I think I will get the base i5 CPU, the GPU upgrade and I will switch the FD for the 256GB SSD and even put a 512GB SSD in it.

I'm still not sure about the i7 vs. the 512GB SSD.

The problem is, that since I will get the machine through my employer, I was told that I cannot return a BTO, which kind of sucks big time.

I'm thankful for any advice... does anyone have the i5 with 295X?

 

[joema2]

I talked to someone at Apple and they told me that for my purposes i5 and 295X is really enough power since I don't edit huge 4K Videos and I don't plan to...So what do you think?...

As a video editor I am naturally biased toward the fastest possible CPU. In video editing most common tasks are multithreaded and CPU bound, not GPU or disk bound. However GPU can also be very important. This varies a bit based on the software -- Premiere uses GPU for rendering effects, whereas FCP X does so less. However they both use the CPU a lot, especially for final rendering and export.

I personally tested a FCP X export with i7 hyperthreading on and off, and HT improved export performance by 30%. The degree of improvement varies widely so you never know if HT will help. It did *not* help Lightroom 5 import/export any.

I mostly edit 1080p/30 HD but some 4K. Even at 1080p, you can never have too much CPU. Unless you are editing uncompressed video (e.g, RED raw, etc), or several concurrent streams of H.264, the I/O load isn't that high. The CPU load is consistently very high.

That said, a retina iMac with i5 and 295X would be a nice machine and you'd love it. So don't worry too much about the specifics. You will enjoy either configuration.

 

[mtbdudex]

^^^you will enjoy either configuration

Simple and great advice, time to order and move on

 

[paelzersebbi]

Ok, I thought about it again and I will go to my reseller on Monday to finally order this machine and finally stop thinking about configurations:

i5, GPU upgrade, 512GB SSD, 8GB RAM

I realized that a 256GB SSD is barely enough for OS X & Windows 8. On my wife's iMac I tried to install Windows 8 on an external USB3 SSD and it works quite well (I found very good instructions, but you need a Windows machine to set it up). Before I did that, I had Windows on the BootCamp partition on the internal SSD, which was a lot faster booting up than the USB3 SSD, but it was very hard to find the space for the BootCamp partition on her 256GB SSD.

Soooo, long story short: 512GB SSD it is!

 

[odedia]

Simple:

- You can't upgrade the CPU later on (under warranty at least), and it's a much faster CPU - up to 47% in hyper-threaded applications (according to barefeats).
- You can easily add external SSD as a boot drive later on, and IT WILL BE A WHOLE LOT FASTER THAT THE INTERNAL SSD APPLE OFFERS. Internal SSD is limited to 2x PCIe, which mases out at around 700mb/sec read/write. External SSD via Thunderbolt 2 can peak at 1350mb/sec read/write (like the Lacie 2Big drive).

Good luck.

 

[paelzersebbi]

I really don't need the power of the i7.

The Thunderbolt drive you're referring to costs about 1200€. I think I can live with 512GB SSD and "only" 700mb/sec read and write speeds

And in 5 years, I will probably get a new iMac...