Help me configure my two Mac purchases. Also, use old Core i7 iMac as second monitor?

[Eug]

I currently have an iMac 2010 Core i7 870 27" iMac with 2 TB HD and 12 GB RAM, but I've been using a 500 GB external FireWire SSD because the HD is way too slow. I also have a 2009 Core 2 Duo 13" MacBook Pro with 4 GB RAM and SSD.

---

I'm thinking of getting this iMac:

27" iMac with 5K wide gamut Retina Display
3.4 GHz quad-core i5 Kaby Lake with turbo boost up to 3.8 GHz (i5-7500?)
16 GB RAM
1 TB SSD
Thunderbolt 3 / USB C
Radeon Pro 570 with 4 GB RAM

It seems the only upgrade the next step up besides the 3.5 GHz i5 (4.1 GHz turbo) is the Radeon Pro 575, also with 4 GB RAM.

http://pro.radeon.com/en-us/pro-500-series-for-updated-imac/
http://creators.radeon.com/radeon-pro/

I'm thinking both of those upgrades would be lost on me. I do some light editing in Photos and Photoshop and occasionally home videos (including 4K), but nothing effect heavy.

I'm thinking spending the money on SSD (instead of Fusion Drive) would be more beneficial than getting a higher end GPU and slightly faster CPU. The difference in price between the two models is CAD$250 (3.4 GHz i5 with Radeon 570 vs 3.5 GHz i5 with Radeon 575).

I'm also thinking I'd use my existing Core i7 iMac as a second monitor. Not wide gamut or Retina but it would be good for VPNing to work and for browsing, file folders, etc. I'm not sure how much I'd get selling it. OTOH, it seems like a waste of power using it as a monitor.

CPU comparison (old vs. new): http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-870-vs-Intel-Core-i5-7500/m961vs3648

That CPU speed improvement is only +50% though. Then again, with PCIe SSD, that thing should scream, and it also now has Thunderbolt 3 for external storage.

---

I'm thinking of getting this MacBook:

1.3 GHz Core i5 Kaby Lake Y with Turbo Boost up to 3.2 GHz
8 GB RAM
512 GB SSD

I use it mainly for business applications, but occasionally would use it for light photo and video editing on the road, including 4K home videos. Bringing it to 16 GB RAM would be another CAD$216. Not a huge amount of money, but then again 16 GB I think would be overkill for my usage.

CPU comparison (old vs new): http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Duo-P8400-vs-Intel-Core-i5-7Y54/m307vsm193628

CPU speed improvement is +143%. Nice.

Comments?

 

[Eug]

iMac17,1 3.2 GHz Core i5 6500 - Geekbench 4.1.0: 4514 / 13308 (Extrapolated to 3.4 GHz = 4796 / 14140)
iMac11,3 2.93 GHz Core i7 870 - Geekbench 4.1.0: 2863 / 9388

 

[Commodus]

I currently have an iMac 2010 Core i7 870 27" iMac with 2 TB HD and 12 GB RAM, but I've been using a 500 GB external FireWire SSD because the HD is way too slow. I also have a 2009 Core 2 Duo 13" MacBook Pro with 4 GB RAM and SSD.

---

I'm thinking of getting this iMac:

27" iMac with 5K wide gamut Retina Display
3.4 GHz quad-core i5 Kaby Lake with turbo boost up to 3.8 GHz (i5-7500?)
16 GB RAM
1 TB SSD
Thunderbolt 3 / USB C
Radeon Pro 570 with 4 GB RAM

It seems the only upgrade the next step up besides the 3.5 GHz i5 (4.1 GHz turbo) is the Radeon Pro 575, also with 4 GB RAM.

http://pro.radeon.com/en-us/pro-500-series-for-updated-imac/
http://creators.radeon.com/radeon-pro/

I'm thinking both of those upgrades would be lost on me. I do some light editing in Photos and Photoshop and occasionally home videos (including 4K), but nothing effect heavy.

I'm thinking spending the money on SSD (instead of Fusion Drive) would be more beneficial than getting a higher end GPU and slightly faster CPU. The difference in price between the two models is CAD$250 (3.4 GHz i5 with Radeon 570 vs 3.5 GHz i5 with Radeon 575).

I'm also thinking I'd use my existing Core i7 iMac as a second monitor. Not wide gamut or Retina but it would be good for VPNing to work and for browsing, file folders, etc. I'm not sure how much I'd get selling it. OTOH, it seems like a waste of power using it as a monitor.

CPU comparison (old vs. new): http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-870-vs-Intel-Core-i5-7500/m961vs3648

That CPU speed improvement is only +50% though. Then again, with PCIe SSD, that thing should scream, and it also now has Thunderbolt 3 for external storage.

---

I'm thinking of getting this MacBook:

1.3 GHz Core i5 Kaby Lake Y with Turbo Boost up to 3.2 GHz
8 GB RAM
512 GB SSD

I use it mainly for business applications, but occasionally would use it for light photo and video editing on the road, including 4K home videos. Bringing it to 16 GB RAM would be another CAD$216. Not a huge amount of money, but then again 16 GB I think would be overkill for my usage.

CPU comparison (old vs new): http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Duo-P8400-vs-Intel-Core-i5-7Y54/m307vsm193628

CPU speed improvement is +143%. Nice.

Comments?

On the iMac:

I'd actually lean more toward capacity than speed. My (now previous-gen) 5K iMac has a 2TB Fusion Drive that still feels fast, and you probably won't stress it so hard that you'll immediately notice the difference with a 1TB SSD. Heck, if you only need 1TB of space, roll the savings into a second monitor and sell the old iMac!

And the MacBook:

A 12-inch MacBook probably wouldn't be a great idea for 4K video editing... that CPU really isn't fast. I'd rather go for a 13-inch MacBook Pro (it can be the non-Touch Bar model) and bump up the SSD capacity.

 

[Eug]

Well, I'm thinking for storage on the iMac, I can go external if necessary, but I'd like my boot drive which also has the Photos library to be all SSD. Maybe overkill though I dunno. Right now I'm using a 500 GB SSD as my boot drive and I'm running out of space.

I think 2 TB would be ideal, but I'm a little worried about the speed of the Fusion drive, and I've had many, many HDs die on me so I'm a little gun shy these days with HDs.

What about memory? I see so many people these days spec-ing 32 GB, but really, how many people need that? Also, the memory is user accessible, so I can always upgrade later. I did notice one difference though. The base 27" model has a max of 32 GB, whereas the other models go up to 64 GB. What's the difference? They all have the same number of memory slots (4).

Alternatively I can just get 8 GB RAM from Apple, and then add in another 16 GB Crucial RAM, for a total of 24 GB.

---

As for the 12" MacBook, video editing will be only on vacation, but I want a 2 lb laptop. I find my MacBook Pro too heavy and bulky, so I don't take it with me much. Honestly 256 GB is OK for me, but I figure going to 512 GB is reasonable.

However, I'm starting to wonder if I should get 16 GB in the MacBook too. Chrome is such a hog.

 

[Commodus]

Well, I'm thinking for storage on the iMac, I can go external if necessary, but I'd like my boot drive which also has the Photos library to be all SSD. Maybe overkill though I dunno. Right now I'm using a 500 GB SSD as my boot drive and I'm running out of space.

I think 2 TB would be ideal, but I'm a little worried about the speed of the Fusion drive, and I've had many, many HDs die on me so I'm a little gun shy these days with HDs.

What about memory? I see so many people these days spec-ing 32 GB, but really, how many people need that? Also, the memory is user accessible, so I can always upgrade later. I did notice one difference though. The base 27" model has a max of 32 GB, whereas the other models go up to 64 GB. What's the difference? They all have the same number of memory slots (4).

Alternatively I can just get 8 GB RAM from Apple, and then add in another 16 GB Crucial RAM, for a total of 24 GB.

---

As for the 12" MacBook, video editing will be only on vacation, but I want a 2 lb laptop. I find my MacBook Pro too heavy and bulky, so I don't take it with me much. Honestly 256 GB is OK for me, but I figure going to 512 GB is reasonable.

However, I'm starting to wonder if I should get 16 GB in the MacBook too. Chrome is such a hog.

I've generally had good fortune with spinning hard drives. Even Time Machine drives, which is no mean feat when they write loads of data every hour. I'd consider a Fusion Drive since you're not doing full-time 4K video... photos will take longer to load, but not that much longer. Not that I'd exactly object to a 1TB SSD if you just have to have it.

With RAM, I think that's just a question of what Apple lets you configure in-store. Presumably it's to upsell you to higher-end models. (That and, let's face it, you can afford a higher-end Mac if you can justify 64GB of RAM.) Stick to the base memory and get third-party if you need more.

Which MacBook Pro do you have, by the way? I ask because it's one thing if you're used to the previous-gen Retinas or earlier and haven't used the latest ones. That half pound or more really makes a difference, and it's more like lifting a MacBook Air. Just remember: a lighter laptop is no fun to carry if you can't accomplish the tasks you want with it.

 

[Eug]

Which MacBook Pro do you have, by the way? I ask because it's one thing if you're used to the previous-gen Retinas or earlier and haven't used the latest ones. That half pound or more really makes a difference, and it's more like lifting a MacBook Air. Just remember: a lighter laptop is no fun to carry if you can't accomplish the tasks you want with it.

Specs of old MacBook Pro in OP. 2009 13" C2D non-Retina. One of the things I don't like about it is that it's a little too big for economy class on the plane. That and the weight.

BTW, I just came across press release:

Support for industry-standard HEVC (H.265) enables video streaming and playback of 4K video files at incredible quality that are also up to 40 percent smaller than with the current H.264 standard.1 With HEVC, Apple is enabling high-quality video streaming on networks where only HD streaming was previously possible, while hardware acceleration on the new iMac and MacBook Pro deliver incredibly fast and power-efficient HEVC encoding and editing.

Hmmm... It's rather concerning they specifically left out the MacBook. Hopefully they didn't cripple the MacBook with regards to HEVC hardware support, because the Kaby Lake Y CPU does support it.

Also, according to this page HEVC 4K playback is supported on any Mac with Skylake or later.

https://www.apple.com/macos/high-sierra-preview/#footnote-2

But we know that already. Skylake has hybrid 10-bit decode. However, the description makes no mention of how hardware decode is utilized in High Sierra.

EDIT:

I just found a screen grab indicating 6th gen (Skylake) CPUs would support HEVC in hardware.

I guess they're talking about 8-bit HEVC decode. 10-bit would still utilize significant CPU on the Skylake models. But what about encoding? And then there's the little issue of VP9 and Chrome, as well as Netflix 4K, which hasn't been mentioned yet.

 

[Commodus]

Specs of old MacBook Pro in OP. 2009 13" C2D non-Retina. One of the things I don't like about it is that it's a little too big for economy class on the plane. That and the weight.

BTW, I just came across press release:

Support for industry-standard HEVC (H.265) enables video streaming and playback of 4K video files at incredible quality that are also up to 40 percent smaller than with the current H.264 standard.1 With HEVC, Apple is enabling high-quality video streaming on networks where only HD streaming was previously possible, while hardware acceleration on the new iMac and MacBook Pro deliver incredibly fast and power-efficient HEVC encoding and editing.

Hmmm... It's rather concerning they specifically left out the MacBook. Hopefully they didn't cripple the MacBook with regards to HEVC hardware support, because the Kaby Lake Y CPU does support it.

Also, according to this page HEVC 4K playback is supported on any Mac with Skylake or later.

https://www.apple.com/macos/high-sierra-preview/#footnote-2

But we know that already. Skylake has hybrid 10-bit decode. However, the description makes no mention of how hardware decode is utilized in High Sierra.

EDIT:

I just found a screen grab indicating 6th gen (Skylake) CPUs would support HEVC in hardware.

I guess they're talking about 8-bit HEVC decode. 10-bit would still utilize significant CPU on the Skylake models. But what about encoding? And then there's the little issue of VP9 and Chrome, as well as Netflix 4K, which hasn't been mentioned yet.

Remember that your current 13-inch Pro has a larger overall footprint than the current model, and weighs 1.5 pounds more! You're basically shedding an original iPad's worth of weight. A 12-inch MacBook is still lighter, of course, but if you haven't lifted the current 13-inch MBP, I'd give it a try... it's pretty reasonable.

As for the HEVC mention, I wonder if it's because the Kaby Lake Y chips still aren't particularly powerful, and Apple doesn't want to promise smooth 4K playback.

 

[Eug]

I'll check out the new Pros again but I wasn't so enamoured with the 13.3" Air's form factor either. The 12" is what I've been wanting size wise ever since the Air came out. The only thing is the keyboard. The Pros have a better one although I have to check out Butterfly 2.

The MacBook 2017 should be able to play 4K 10-bit HEVC no problem. Encoding not so sure speed wise.

Also I got a quote of ~$800 CAD to put a 1 TB SSD in my existing iMac. Not worth it considering it's limited USB 2 and FireWire and may soon lose OS X support.

 

[Commodus]

I'll check out the new Pros again but I wasn't so enamoured with the 13.3" Air's form factor either. The 12" is what I've been wanting size wise ever since the Air came out. The only thing is the keyboard. The Pros have a better one although I have to check out Butterfly 2.

The MacBook 2017 should be able to play 4K 10-bit HEVC no problem. Encoding not so sure speed wise.

Also I got a quote of ~$800 CAD to put a 1 TB SSD in my existing iMac. Not worth it considering it's limited USB 2 and FireWire and may soon lose OS X support.

I look at it this way: something a bit bigger could be worth a lot more if it means the difference between guaranteed smooth 4K video and the "maybe, hopefully" of the 12-incher. Don't forget, too, that this assumes widespread use of HEVC, which won't happen for a while yet.

You'll definitely get better encoding performance on the Pro, I'll say that. Encode still tends to be much more dependent on raw number crunching.

Sorry about trying to stomp all over your dreams of a 12-inch MacBook -- it's just that I've seen enough about the Y-series chips that I wouldn't want to count on one for heavy lifting. Especially given the price cuts, the 13-inch Pro seems to strike a good balance between speed and portability.

 

[Eug]

OK, I can confirm the old 2009 iMac still works fine in Target Display Mode in Sierra 10.12, using Mini-DisplayPort.

Since this iMac does not have Thunderbolt, I'll try buying a USB-C to Mini-DisplayPort adapter to see how well that works with both the new MacBook and the new iMac, if I get them.

Mind you, it seems rather foolish to use full-fledged Core i7 8-thread 140 Watt machine as a monitor.

 

[Eug]

I'm now thinking to just go with 256 GB on the MacBook. I just realized I only have 120 GB on my current Pro, so this would actually be over twice as much space.

Here are the various options for the iMac (CAD$):

• 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz
• 16GB 2400MHz DDR4
• 1TB SSD
• Radeon Pro 570 with 4GB video memory
• Magic Mouse 2
• Magic Keyboard with Numeric Keypad - US English
• $3271

• 3.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 4.1GHz
• 16GB 2400MHz DDR4
• 1TB SSD
• Radeon Pro 575 with 4GB video memory
• Magic Mouse 2
• Magic Keyboard with Numeric Keypad - US English
• $3521

• 4.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
• 16GB 2400MHz DDR4
• 1TB SSD
• Radeon Pro 575 with 4GB video memory
• Magic Mouse 2
• Magic Keyboard with Numeric Keypad - US English
• $3845

• 3.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 4.2GHz
• 16GB 2400MHz DDR4
• 1TB SSD
• Radeon Pro 580 with 8GB video memory
• Magic Mouse 2
• Magic Keyboard with Numeric Keypad - US English
• $3713

• 4.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
• 16GB 2400MHz DDR4
• 1TB SSD
• Radeon Pro 580 with 8GB video memory
• Magic Mouse 2
• Magic Keyboard with Numeric Keypad - US English
• $3929

As far as I can tell, these are the processors:

3.4 GHz Core i5 7500 with 6 MB cache, 65 W TDP
3.5 GHz Core i5 7600 with 6 MB cache, 65 W TDP
3.8 GHz Core i5 7600K with 6 MB cache, 91 W TDP
4.2 GHz Core i7 7700K with 8 MB cache, 91 W TDP

So, the only one that makes any sense for me is the 3.4 GHz, in terms of bang for the buck. I don't really want to go a 91 W part. Mind you, my current i7 870 is a 95 W part, and the machine runs pretty quietly most of the time.

Also, it appears that if history is indicative, 16 GB on the 5K Retina iMacs is 2 x 8 GB, leaving 2 slots open, so there is no need to get more than 16 GB for now. I can always add more later:

https://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2015/20151121_1918-iMac5K-memory-options.html

So I think I know what I'm likely getting now, subject to change over the next week:

iMac:

• 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.8GHz
• 16GB 2400MHz DDR4
• 1TB SSD
• Radeon Pro 570 with 4GB video memory
• Magic Mouse 2
• Magic Keyboard with Numeric Keypad - US English
• $3271

MacBook:

• 1.3GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 processor, Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz
• 8GB 1866MHz LPDDR3 memory
• 256GB or 512GB SSD storage
• Intel HD Graphics 615
• Backlit Keyboard - US English
• $1767 or $1929

Now I just have to pick the MacBook colour.

 

[Eug]

What about memory? I see so many people these days spec-ing 32 GB, but really, how many people need that? Also, the memory is user accessible, so I can always upgrade later. I did notice one difference though. The base 27" model has a max of 32 GB, whereas the other models go up to 64 GB. What's the difference? They all have the same number of memory slots (4).

OWC has confirmed that the base model supports 64 GB just fine. The 32 GB limitation is just to get people to get a higher end model.

And this is the RAM from Crucial:

CT10559859

I think I'll just get the 8 GB configuration from Apple and then add in another 16 GB for a total of 24 GB. That ought to last the life of this computer for me.

The other good news is that the machine is running 10.12.4. That means anyone with the latest version of Sierra on an existing Mac can do a direct clone to the new machines if desired.

 

[Eug]

Purchase made! Thanks for the help.

MacBook m3 1.2/3.0 GHz with 256 GB SSD and 16 GB RAM

iMac i5-7500 3.4/3.8 GHz with 1 TB SSD and 8 GB RAM.
Bluetooth keyboard with numeric keypad.
Magic Mouse 2
AppleCare
Additional 16 GB RAM ordered from Crucial, for a total of 24 GB.

AirPods

I should be set for a while.

 

[Commodus]

Purchase made! Thanks for the help.

MacBook m3 1.2/3.0 GHz with 256 GB SSD and 16 GB RAM

iMac i5-7500 3.4/3.8 GHz with 1 TB SSD and 8 GB RAM.
Bluetooth keyboard with numeric keypad.
Magic Mouse 2
AppleCare
Additional 16 GB RAM ordered from Crucial, for a total of 24 GB.

AirPods

I should be set for a while.

Slightly jealous... I have a 5K iMac, but it's now the old and busted compared to this new hotness. And curious to see how well the MacBook fares!

 

[Eug]

The only consideration that might make one pause is the fact that Intel just previewed a 6-core desktop chip which may launch as early as 6-months from now. That means Apple could theoretically release a new iMac in early to mid 2018 with 6-cores. Not sure if that would just be an i7, or it could include both the i7 and a higher end i5 as well.

However, I'm going to keep my order anyway, because my prediction is those will be the higher priced machines and I don't feel like waiting anymore, and there are other factors too that make updating now more desirable. Not the least of those is that my current machine is a 2010, and is currently booting off a Firewire SSD. Definitely not ideal.

 

[Commodus]

The only consideration that might make one pause is the fact that Intel just previewed a 6-core desktop chip which may launch as early as 6-months from now. That means Apple could theoretically release a new iMac in early to mid 2018 with 6-cores. Not sure if that would just be an i7, or it could include both the i7 and a higher end i5 as well.

However, I'm going to keep my order anyway, because my prediction is those will be the higher priced machines and I don't feel like waiting anymore, and there are other factors too that make updating now more desirable. Not the least of those is that my current machine is a 2010, and is currently booting off a Firewire SSD. Definitely not ideal.

Realistically, I don't think you'd get much more out of the extra cores anyway. Your videos would process a bit faster, you might have better performance running more apps at once... and that's about it. There will be a time when most people will see a benefit from more than four cores, but that's not today.

 

[Eug]

Realistically, I don't think you'd get much more out of the extra cores anyway. Your videos would process a bit faster, you might have better performance running more apps at once... and that's about it. There will be a time when most people will see a benefit from more than four cores, but that's not today.

I've been checking over the Geekbench scores and checking out this Lightroom performance review:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...Intel-Core-i7-7700K-i5-7600K-Performance-880/

Geekbench 4 puts the scores of the various chips around here:

3.4 GHz i5-7500: 4980/ 14800
3.5 GHz i5-7600: 5300 / 15500
3.8 GHz i5-7600K: 5450 / 16000
4.2 GHz i7-7700K: 5800 / 20000

The Puget Systems review had the faster clocked quad systems faster than the hex-core systems at everything except export to JPEG. However, there was a noticeable speedup going from the 3.5 GHz i5-6600 (Skylake) to the 4.2 GHz i7-7700K (Kaby Lake).

My current Core i7 870 gets around 3000 / 10600 in Geekbench 4, and a jump to 4980 / 14800 for the base model i5 just didn't seem very compelling. I ideally like to double the performance when I buy.

So, I cancelled my i5-7500 order and re-ordered with an i7-7700K.

• 4.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
• 8GB 2400MHz DDR4
• 1TB SSD
• Radeon Pro 580 with 8GB video memory
• Magic Mouse 2
• Magic Keyboard with Numeric Keypad - US English
• Accessory Kit