Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The right investment for my needs!

M

Moriske

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 19, 2015
112
26
For the first time I'd go with an iMac 27 "purchases, because it does involve an expensive investment, it must be aligned correctly.

What do I do with this iMac 27 "?
The intention is for this iMac especially for light photo-editing (ligthroom) and light video-editing like iMovie, which further converting en encoding many audio and video files (MKV). multitask, everything else is normal usage.

How long do you wish to use this iMac?
I hope with this investment and 4-5 more years to have fun.

Much or little storage space?
All my data is externally Nas as a backup safely stored!
I wish no mechanical drive and thus have an SSD; How big exactlythis you only need to continue for years to be able to estimate forme difficult.

Currently, I am now working for a year with a mac mini i7 2.3GHz 16GB RAM + SSD256GB.

Which suits me fine for everyday tasks, only when I output tasks such as rendering video files BD files to MKV and many audio files from FLAC to MP3 or Alac it is too slow to me. Even when converting various raw photos, much of the Mac Mini is requested.

Just because I have the iMac to replace the Mac Mini for the coming of years will have just a bit faster.


27-inch iMac with Retina Display 5K
Processor: 5i and 7i ???
Memory: 8GB, later expanded to more.
SSD: 256GB or 512GB ???
Graphics: ???
Magic Mouse 2 + Numeric wired keyboard.
 
Last edited:
Since you don't really need an iMac for what you do, I'd buy the least expensive 27" with the 256GB flash drive option. You will never fill up the 256GB drive with software before you replace the machine.
 
Last edited:
For the processor choice keyword is light, if you aren't going to be doing any heavy video editing and rendering save yourself some cash and go with the i5. More cores does not equal better longevity, and the i7 does not give enough of a performance boost for everyday and light tasks for it to be worth the money.

Memory is on point

Go with the 512GB SSD if you plan on using it for a while.

Graphics performance you will only see with heavy video editing like 4K video in Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premier or using programs like After Effects or 3D modeling and animating software. Also this will help for gaming if you plan on doing that. If you don't think you'll be doing any of that, save yourself some more money and go with the R9 380.
 
Sorry, I just see now that my first post was not complete :(

Currently, I am now working for a year with a mac mini i7 2.3GHz 16GB RAM + SSD256GB.

Which suits me fine for everyday tasks, only when I output tasks such as rendering video files BD files to MKV and many audio files from FLAC to MP3 or Alac it is too slow to me. Even when converting various raw photos, much of the Mac Mini is requested.

Just because I have the iMac to replace the Mac Mini for the coming of years will have just a bit faster.
 
It depends on the software you are using to encode your MKVs. Encoding benefits from the faster i7 4 cores and 8 threads over the slower i5 with 4 cores. Adobe Programs and Final Cut Pro X make use of the best GPU and GPU memory you can throw at it. I would strongly recommend the 512 Flash storage as well.
 
Moriske said:
Sorry, I just see now that my first post was not complete :(

Currently, I am now working for a year with a mac mini i7 2.3GHz 16GB RAM + SSD256GB.

Which suits me fine for everyday tasks, only when I output tasks such as rendering video files BD files to MKV and many audio files from FLAC to MP3 or Alac it is too slow to me. Even when converting various raw photos, much of the Mac Mini is requested.

Just because I have the iMac to replace the Mac Mini for the coming of years will have just a bit faster.
Click to expand...

The i5 iMac might not be faster on the audio files since that's CPU only. It will, however, be significantly faster on the video files because it uses a separate, more powerful GPU. My point, however, still stands. Since you say you do these tasks infrequently, why spend the extra money?
 
Sirmausalot said:
It depends on the software you are using to encode your MKVs. Encoding benefits from the faster i7 4 cores and 8 threads over the slower i5 with 4 cores. Adobe Programs and Final Cut Pro X make use of the best GPU and GPU memory you can throw at it. I would strongly recommend the 512 Flash storage as well.
Click to expand...
Regarding the software i used.

video:
To convert BD video files, I use mainly MKVToolnix and DVDFab, exceptional HandBrake. Regarding the use of iMovie is this just for joining homemade holiday movies in one movie.
music:
To convert FLAC to MP3 or Alac I use mostly dBpoweramp.
picture:
Regarding Raw, happen some slight editing with Lightroom / Photoshop EL or Canon DPP. furthermore it comes to converting raw images to jpg.
 
Your best performance increase will be getting the most powerful CPU you can get. The i7 at 4GHz is what I recommend. For your work, you don't need the highest end GPU. So that depends on your budget. I strongly recommend the 512GB Flash drive and upgrade the RAM later yourself! If money is tight, hold off on the RAM upgrade to get the larger Flash drive.

BTW, encoding is is some of the most processor intensive work the computer can do! Just ripping requires a fast Blu-ray drive.

PS. If budget is tight, you could consider a refurbished of last years model.

Moriske said:
Regarding the software i used.

video:
To convert BD video files, I use mainly MKVToolnix and DVDFab, exceptional HandBrake. Regarding the use of iMovie is this just for joining homemade holiday movies in one movie.
music:
To convert FLAC to MP3 or Alac I use mostly dBpoweramp.
picture:
Regarding Raw, happen some slight editing with Lightroom / Photoshop EL or Canon DPP. furthermore it comes to converting raw images to jpg.
Click to expand...
 
Sirmausalot said:
Your best performance increase will be getting the most powerful CPU you can get. The i7 at 4GHz is what I recommend. For your work, you don't need the highest end GPU. So that depends on your budget. I strongly recommend the 512GB Flash drive and upgrade the RAM later yourself! If money is tight, hold off on the RAM upgrade to get the larger Flash drive.

BTW, encoding is is some of the most processor intensive work the computer can do! Just ripping requires a fast Blu-ray drive.

PS. If budget is tight, you could consider a refurbished of last years model.
Click to expand...
Why do you recommend me a 512GB SSD, even if all my data is always available on a Nas. Once I've finished editing a video file goes back as backup to the NAS, or is there another reason why you give me a strong SSD 512GB to recommend?

As for the encoding of my entire BD library, I just want to convert the many M2TS files to MKV.
Are the differences between the Skylake i5 (6600) and the i7 (6700) so great for converting that to justify the purchase of an i7?

I also want my current Mac Mini + monitor 2460 x 1440 upgrade to an iMac 5K.
If the i7 here really must see if it is recommended, I ask myself whether or hite and noise problems in the first edition 5K iMacs have been solved with the 2nd edition?
 
Anybody here who can tell me what the difference is between the two processors i5, so that I can carry in my choice?

3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
vs
3.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz
 
Grossly, it is the speed in which the processor makes calculations in Ghz. The faster processor will work, well, faster. But there are a gazillion variables and only testing with all other variables (including hardware and software) can we be certain of 'how much difference does the difference make' However, as I stated, for your needs of converting and compressing video, you want the fastest processor you can afford. Will the faster processor save you 10% time of a handbrake encode? Possibly. 20%, who knows. Will an i7 make a 20% difference in time compared to the slower i5? Possibly. But determining that is well, well beyond the scope of these boards.

Moriske said:
Anybody here who can tell me what the difference is between the two processors i5, so that I can carry in my choice?

3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
vs
3.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz
Click to expand...
 
Uh, i do not understand all of this hardware components to make my right choice.
My Mac Mini with 16GB Ram + 256GB SSD remains in the family to someone else. So this is the reason of my upgrade to a faster iMac 5K.

To make things easier I will have to choose between budgetary reasons, the following hardware.
Processor i5 3,3GHz + 512GB SSD
or
Processor i7 4,0GHz + 256GB SSD
 
Last edited:
Sirmausalot said:
...Will an i7 make a 20% difference in time compared to the slower i5? Possibly...
Click to expand...

That is a very conservative estimate for the workload the OP stated. He is doing transcoding, which is inherently CPU (not GPU) based. Also transcoding is multi-threaded and benefits from more cores. In my own tests turning hyperthreading on/off with a the CPUSetter utility made a 30% difference in H.264 export (i.e. encode) time from FCP X. On top of that is the Mhz difference between i5 and i7, which is 14%. So going from a 3.5Ghz i5 to 4Ghz i7 could make at least a 40% difference in video encoding and transcoding.

The terminology we use is often confusing. We loosely say "render the video" when we really mean encode and write the file. Effects are rendered, but video is encoded to a stream or file. Those are two totally different things. Effects can often be GPU accelerated, but encoding often cannot be.

As Sirmausalot said, video decoding/encoding of long-GOP formats like H.264 is primarily CPU-bound. The core algorithm is inherently sequential and not amenable to the GPU-style parallelization. The only way to get dramatic speedups is accelerate the core algorithm which is what Intel's Quick Sync does, or just use more cores.
 
If I i5 processors (6600) with four cores and four threads, and compare this with the i7 (6700) also with four cores and eight threads, it seems to me the i7 for processing audio, photo and video files more suitable.

Yet proving this man (movie unfortunately tedious) that an i5 for the above tasks are male can be best.


Also, it seems to me an i5 to i7 which are more energy efficient and develop less heat, so the fans will be spoken less, right?
Hmmm, tough decision ....
 
Today I went to the store to recommend me a suitable iMac 5K for the next five years. The following iMac would be for my requirements and use, it would be perfect for me, everything else is overkill and waste of money.

Instead of the standard 3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz was me or the 3.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz recommended!

27-inch iMac with Retina Display 5K
3.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz
8GB 1867MHz DDR3 SDRAM - two 4GB
256GB Flash Storage
AMD Radeon R9 M395 with 2GB video memory
Magic Mouse 2 + Magic Keyboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back