Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Six-core retina iMac
- Thread starter underblu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As mcnallym pointed out, Intel's 6- and 8-core CPUs use a completely different socket (LGA1150 for the current iMac, LGA201-v3 for 6- and 8-core). In addition, the 6- and 8-core CPUs have way to high a TDP (130w-140w) than the highest end 4-core CPUs that are in the iMac (84w-88w), which means the iMac chassis couldn't get rid of that much heat before damaging it's internal components. As much as I'd like to see Apple provide a six- or eight- core BTO option for the iMac, a Mac Pro will most likely be your only option for the foreseeable future.
Why? Which software do you use that can use a six or eight core CPU's? Don't forget these are i7, so they also have hyperthreading. So a four core can handle already 8 threads, a six core 12, etc. More cores usually means lower Ghz.
I have worked at a high end architectural firm. Their best render boxes where (Dell) 4 core Xeons with a high end gpu with 8 GB of Ram, SSD scratch disc and a very fast network connection to a big SSD raid. They let them render all nigt long.
It didn't make sense to use Xeons with more cores as they used to have 6 core Xeons. They where too expensive and the software almost never used it, more speed gains came from the higher Ghz of the 4 core and the beast of a GPU. These are render boxes, an iMac or any all in one isn't. That's why the MacPro exists and has ECC Ram.
Don't get me wrong, if affordable I would buy a 6-core iMac, just for bragging rights!
However, I already can't push my i7 to the limits.
I have worked at a high end architectural firm. Their best render boxes where (Dell) 4 core Xeons with a high end gpu with 8 GB of Ram, SSD scratch disc and a very fast network connection to a big SSD raid. They let them render all nigt long.
It didn't make sense to use Xeons with more cores as they used to have 6 core Xeons. They where too expensive and the software almost never used it, more speed gains came from the higher Ghz of the 4 core and the beast of a GPU. These are render boxes, an iMac or any all in one isn't. That's why the MacPro exists and has ECC Ram.
Don't get me wrong, if affordable I would buy a 6-core iMac, just for bragging rights!
However, I already can't push my i7 to the limits.
Basic, common operations in Lightroom and FCP X take all available cores. Last night I exported to jpg the raw 42 megapixel photos from a single afternoon's shooting. All eight virtual cores on my top-spec 2013 iMac were maxed out, and it took several hours. If I had 16 or 32 cores, it would have used that.
Similarly, just applying common plugin filters or exporting in FCP X takes often takes all available cores.
Doing these common operations while watching the performance indicators in iStat Menus, etc. shows they are highly parallelized and CPU-bound, and the more cores the better.
Well, you don't try hard enough. Many computer users are running multiple tasks at the same time today. And since OS X distributes the load across all system resources, this asks for more cores. Imagine for example compiling source code with Fink or Macports and converting some audio/photo/video in the background, while at the same time watching a video, browsing the web or listening to music. You can happily have a 6- or 8-core machine to handle the load, for the time it lasts at least.
But there is even consumer-grade software, like the Video Converter from iSkysoft, that will eat up all cores while applying a video transformation. This is not pro's work, it is not going to last for hours and I can imagine almost anyone doing it.
It is a pity that Intel's multicore chips come with incompatible sockets. On the positive side, the 4-core chips can reach higher frequencies than the n-core ones, n > 4.