iMac 2020 i7 vs i9 processor

[Tone Deft]

- do you just have links to these computers you can post? surely you've looked at web pages of these. dunno why people don't just post their own research here to get us up to speed. half this forum is playing 'read my mind, answer my question'.

If you’d bothered actually reading this thread you might have notified I’ve put up a benchmark of the 2020 27’ i9 IMAC THAT I OWN.

I don't shop Macs so I sound like an idiot describing them. ]

You don’t say. Goodbye.

an i9 is not just an i9, which i9? which i7? even then, why is there an i7 and an i9? it's a textbook exercise to look at Apple's product offerings over the years. not on a pre-built system sitting on your desk. I guess that's another thing I can look up and lay out...

[TLW]

OK, according to the boot camp Win 10 installation I had a mess about with the cpu model is an Intel i9-10910, a chip with a 95W TDP that so far seems unique to Apple. I don’t know exactly what the i7 is.

[fishmonkey]

OK, according to the boot camp Win 10 installation I had a mess about with the cpu model is an Intel i9-10910, a chip with a 95W TDP that so far seems unique to Apple. I don’t know exactly what the i7 is.

you can find the exact CPU model with the following command in Terminal:

sysctl -n machdep.cpu.brand_string

[Tone Deft]

nice!

you can find the exact CPU model with the following command in Terminal:

sysctl -n machdep.cpu.brand_string

on PC type in the cmd bar
sysinfo
to get your system specs, look under Processor.

my mediocre tablet flipover PC laptop is a
i7 10510U @ 2.304MHz
built on the "Comet Lake-U" (14 nm) architecture. 10th Generation.

from looking here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... processors
I can see from the table for my uP is that it's the cheapest and fastest of the group but the least powerful with fewer cores and smaller caches. all of the chips in this group are at 15mW. priced on the high end in the $400 range. mine does seem to be overclocked and there are ???? in the Turbo mode for this chip which makes me wonder what's up with that.

edit - here's a plethora of information
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Cor ... 586.0.html

[Tone Deft]

I don’t know exactly what the i7 is.

here's a nice rundown of the i numbers vs. the generation number
https://www.trustedreviews.com/best/bes ... or-3517396
seems that all this can be found from sifting through those wikipedia pages but this is a good 1,000 foot overview.

searches on your specific processor are scant. this seems to add to the veil of secrecy with what Apple uses. does Apple claim a stake on Intel uPs for their use only? I'm still unclear on Apple's practices.

[jobinho]

What's the consensus?

i7 with 8cores 3.8Ghz or

i9 with 10 core 3.6Ghz

I'm considering the baseline graphics card, 5500XT, I use Adobe Illustrator and InDesign so wouldn't think I need to upgrade here.

[Tone Deft]

What's the consensus?

i7 with 8cores 3.8Ghz or

i9 with 10 core 3.6Ghz

I'm considering the baseline graphics card, 5500XT, I use Adobe Illustrator and InDesign so wouldn't think I need to upgrade here.

obviously the i9.

but the uP you described leaves out a LOT of details. depending on the Generation of the chip it matters. seems like the rule of thumb is the higher the number the better. there's no curating a uP there. there's no way to tell which fab it used etc. your questions contains comparing a dozen different uPs to another dozen different set of uPs.

that's what I've been getting at for the last few days...

[jobinho]

delete

[jobinho]

What's the consensus?

i7 with 8cores 3.8Ghz or

i9 with 10 core 3.6Ghz

I'm considering the baseline graphics card, 5500XT, I use Adobe Illustrator and InDesign so wouldn't think I need to upgrade here.

obviously the i9.

but the uP you described leaves out a LOT of details. depending on the Generation of the chip it matters. seems like the rule of thumb is the higher the number the better. there's no curating a uP there. there's no way to tell which fab it used etc. your questions contains comparing a dozen different uPs to another dozen different set of uPs.

that's what I've been getting at for the last few days...

Thanks for your input

So you wouldn't go for the higher clock speed over more cores for Live?

[Tone Deft]

OK, according to the boot camp Win 10 installation I had a mess about with the cpu model is an Intel i9-10910, a chip with a 95W TDP that so far seems unique to Apple. I don’t know exactly what the i7 is.

fuck me running, your computer is a beautiful BEAST!!!! I wasn't paying attention to the Live 10 Performance Thread. there are other that scored higher but I'm sensing those guys make money at home from their machines. bastards.

some more info on your uP from searching "intel i9 10910 10 core 3.6GHz"
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel ... apple-imac

The Core i9-10910, (spotted via @_rogame), has surfaced on Geekbench inside an unreleased Apple iMac device, meaning it could be a SKU that will be exclusive to Apple.

this answers my question about Intel making chips available SOLELY to Apple. they do. hence the veil of mystery and why my findings are so PC oriented.

Ultimately, the listed clock speeds are what differentiates the Core i9-10910 from its siblings.

it doesn't compare i9 to i7. when comparing i9s, just look at clock speed.

so... Apple doesn't use every f-ing processor out there. they curate their offerings with clear migration paths for their users as coordinated and presented by their Marketing team. it's very elegant. one could say it's dumbed down, but a LOT of people have said THANK YOU, drank the Kool-Aid and have reaped the benefits of their influence over Intel, and now AMD.

the PC landscape uses every f-ing processor available. the problem lies in comparing one PC uP to another. with Apple they've taken care of all this for you.

next layer of this onion for Macs are all the variants of OSes I read about working or not working with Live.

BUT with PCs, we rely on Microsoft to take care of everything, the OS is dumbed down. Microsoft is good at keeping users interested the next gen OSes, every new generation quickly saturates the market.

therein lies the Mac vs. PC wars.

all the while Linux is cranking away in the background. a return to the roots, do anything you want, community driven.

[Tone Deft]

Thanks for your input

So you wouldn't go for the higher clock speed over more cores for Live?

with the kinds of computers you're talking about it just doesn't matter with Live. look at the Live 10 Performance Test. you'll probably score over 100 tracks on that test. what more do you want?

if you're buying the new shit from Apple it'll only be a matter of how many OTHER programs you can run. who the hell needs 100 tracks!?!?! seriously...

maybe that's the new standard. anything that can do 100 tracks of Live 10 there's no need for further discussion. so... "List your computer specs if you can do over 100 tracks in the Performance Test" run those command like sysinfo commands and post them. ????

[Tone Deft]

So you wouldn't go for the higher clock speed over more cores for Live?

why in the name of Zeus' butthole won't you just post the web site you have in your browser that you've been looking at???

it all here!!!!

www.apple.com/mac/

[jobinho]

why in the name of Zeus' butthole won't you just post the web site you have in your browser that you've been looking at???

it all here!!!!

www.apple.com/mac/

What are you on about?

And I need at least 100 tracks... ideally more like 150/200 by the Live performance test

[Tone Deft]

trolled again.

[fishmonkey]

i7 with 8cores 3.8Ghz or
i9 with 10 core 3.6Ghz

once you've got more tracks than cores they are distributed across your cores anyway.

from a purely processor cycles point of view, 8 x 3.8 = 30.4 GHz, and 10 x 3.6 = 36 GHz. that means that the i9 has nearly 20% more processor cycles per second than the i7.