iMac 2020 i7 vs i9 processor

[Tone Deft]

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.

it doesn't work like that. otherwise benchmarks would be that simple. please prove me wrong or stop spreading the misleading BS, that's wrong of you to do, the opposite of teaching. it's 20% gooder??? what does that even mean?

the number of cores have to do with the number of apps you have open.
the clock speed has to do with how quickly the CPU can respond to those apps.

the intention of the chips design dictates where those clock cycles are applied.

there's a whole balance of architecture there that you're ignoring. tradeoffs everywhere. OK, it's 20% gooder, go buy it.

[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.

it doesn't work like that. otherwise benchmarks would be that simple. please prove me wrong or stop spreading the misleading BS, that's wrong of you to do, the opposite of teaching. it's 20% gooder??? what does that even mean?

the number of cores have to do with the number of apps you have open.
the clock speed has to do with how quickly the CPU can respond to those apps.

the intention of the chips design dictates where those clock cycles are applied.

there's a whole balance of architecture there that you're ignoring. tradeoffs everywhere. OK, it's 20% gooder, go buy it.

what's going on with you Tone? why so prickly since your return?

i didn't say it was "20% gooder", on balance however the i9 can do more multicore work than the i7. the clock speeds are similar but the i9 mentioned has 25% more cores.

of course there are a whole host of other factors. however, since the i9 is Intel's top-tier offering in the i-series i'm assuming that the i9 architecture is in general superior to the i7 architecture.

and the stuff you wrote about cores and clock speed is misinformed. the number of cores is about parallelization of work — a single app isn't limited to a single core, it depends on the kind of processing that the app needs to do. the clock speed is about how much work each core can do in a given time period. benchmarking is complicated because there are overheads and so many moving parts.

single-core performance is critical when work cannot be or isn't split between multiple cores, for example if you have a single track in Live with a bunch of CPU-hungry devices on it. but this consideration is only really relevant if the CPUs being compared have very different clock speeds.

https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/imac ... early-2019

[Tone Deft]

i'm assuming that the i9 architecture is in general superior to the i7 architecture.

that's a really bad statement to make in this context. that's only because you see one number bigger than the other. if it's that simple then why are people asking?? it makes no sense.

benchmarking is complicated because there are overheads and so many moving parts.

my point, making your clockrate benchmark a ridiculous idea. you still see all this as a black box with spooky unknowns.

single-core performance is critical when work cannot be or isn't split between multiple cores, for example if you have a single track in Live with a bunch of CPU-hungry devices on it. but this consideration is only really relevant if the CPUs being compared have very different clock speeds.

this is common knowledge and ignores so many things.

post whatever you want, I don't have to read it. you're going to get the thread locked with all of your personal attacks.


just read the thread man... please.

[fishmonkey]

i'm assuming that the i9 architecture is in general superior to the i7 architecture.

that's a really bad statement to make in this context. that's only because you see one number bigger than the other. if it's that simple then why are people asking?? it makes no sense.

benchmarking is complicated because there are overheads and so many moving parts.

my point, making your clockrate benchmark a ridiculous idea. you still see all this as a black box with spooky unknowns.

single-core performance is critical when work cannot be or isn't split between multiple cores, for example if you have a single track in Live with a bunch of CPU-hungry devices on it. but this consideration is only really relevant if the CPUs being compared have very different clock speeds.

this is common knowledge and ignores so many things.

post whatever you want, I don't have to read it. you're going to get the thread locked with all of your personal attacks.

just read the thread man... please.

are you drunk?

in architecture terms the i9 is essentially a beefed up i7.

the increased core count in this context more than makes up for the slight drop in clock speed.

it's not a black box to me, that's your projection. i've forgotten more about computers than you seem to know.

nobody here has a magic wand and can definitively 100% answer the original question, however based on all the available evidence, it's highly likely that the 10-core i9 will outperform the 8-core i7 in question for Live use with high track counts...

[[erm]]

Argh, stop bickering.

[TLW]

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

I came to the conclusion that the very slightly higher i7 clock speed is probably less useful than another 2 cores/4 virtual cores. Not just for DAW use but also for photo editing and processing. At least the choice isn’t between a much faster cpu with fewer cores and a considerably slower one with more cores (e.g. the lower core speeds of the iMac Pro vs the i9 iMac).

[TLW]

are you drunk?

I too have wondered

In the end I decided to introduce a certain person to my account’s “ignore” filter. Not something I do readily to anyone but since a large part of their output is low on signal and high on noise....

I might let them out again in a while, we’ll have to see.

[jobinho]

Argh, stop bickering.

With respect, it's not bickering, it's Tone Deft being obnoxious and attention seeking and others pointing it out.

[jobinho]

Back on track this is a good run down from Ableton regarding the more cores vs higher clock speed question:

https://help.ableton.com/hc/en-us/artic ... ndling-FAQ

More cores, slower clock speed

Pros

• Live supports multi-threading, therefore the more cores are available, the more efficient it will be when working with larger sets with higher track counts, or when working with large instrument or effect racks.

• You'll probably be able to run more apps in conjunction with Live without seeing performance drops.

Cons

• Lower single-threaded performance than a higher clock speed processor.

Fewer cores, higher clock speed

Pros

• Better single threaded performance.

Cons

• Fewer cores to split between applications.

• Not as strong multi-threading performance.

[jobinho]

I came to the conclusion that the very slightly higher i7 clock speed is probably less useful than another 2 cores/4 virtual cores. Not just for DAW use but also for photo editing and processing. At least the choice isn’t between a much faster cpu with fewer cores and a considerably slower one with more cores (e.g. the lower core speeds of the iMac Pro vs the i9 iMac).

I'm leaning that way, the higher power consumption and thermal output is something I'm exploring before I press buy.

[steko]

Argh, stop bickering.

With respect, it's not bickering, it's Tone Deft being obnoxious and attention seeking and others pointing it out.

+1000!

Erik, I really don't get the both-siderism…

(I see that quite a lot here; latest example my link to "Wrong about the Apple Silicon Mac - Youtube" link in the now locked "Apple break from Intel" thread got deleted together with Tone Deft's rantings… - funnily enough, if Tone would have watched it, it would have saved him from posting tons of embarrassing BS & failed attempts of reinventing the wheel...)

Tone Deft for weeks now ruins every Mac thread with his ignorant BS. And on top of that he behaves like an complete asshole.


Enough is enough…


Asperger syndrome - Wikipedia

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

[Tone Deft]

Argh, stop bickering.

With respect, it's not bickering, it's Tone Deft being obnoxious and attention seeking and others pointing it out.

+1000!

Erik, I really don't get the both-siderism…

(I see that quite a lot here; latest example my link to "Wrong about the Apple Silicon Mac - Youtube" link in the now locked "Apple break from Intel" thread got deleted together with Tone Deft's rantings… - funnily enough, if Tone would have watched it, it would have saved him from posting tons of embarrassing BS & failed attempts of reinventing the wheel...)

Tone Deft for weeks now ruins every Mac thread with his ignorant BS. And on top of that he behaves like an complete asshole.


Enough is enough…


Asperger syndrome - Wikipedia

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

enough with editing your post. it's changed quite a bit.

[steko]

Wrong. Just wiped out two redundancies.

And even if I did, there would be nothing wrong with that. At least not before somebody reacted (rewriting history).

BTW completely beside the point...

And hey, after your performance over the last weeks you are really the last one on this forum to use Mr. rolling eyes...