# New iMac dropped in with 10th gen intel chips



## gh0stwrit3r

For who was waiting on the new iMacs with the 10th gen Intel chips -> they've arrived! Now in store!









Mac


The most powerful Mac lineup ever. Supercharged by Apple silicon. MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Studio Display.



www.apple.com


----------



## MGdepp

Looks like this is not the previous iMac chassis with replaceable RAM. Probably as hard to upgrade as the iMac Pro. And it comes with T2.

It will be interesting to see how many people are going to be willing to leave $6000+ for a workstation like this on the table when there is no certainty for how long intel macs are gonna be valid. The $6000+ investment mighy only be worth pennies over night - maybe in 4-5 years. But even when it is gonna take longer: a 2010 Mac Pro is still being sold for more then pennies in 2020.This iMac is gonna be a g5 Mac in probably less then 10 years, although it wouldn’t have to be looking at the hardware.


----------



## ridgero

Still afraid of the cooling solution.


----------



## MGdepp

In many ways this looks like the better option for Apple users.






I9 10900k OpenCore/Catalina Hackintosh Build Journal


Making this computer: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/BgjrZf (Note that not quite all the components are listed. Read the journal for more details!) Build starts on this post: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/i9-10900k-opencore-catalina-hackintosh-build-journal.96309/post-4609982...




vi-control.net





I am happy running my i9 9900k version at least until the day Apple drops support for Intel.


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

ridgero said:


> Still afraid of the cooling solution.


I hoped they would have integrated the iMac Pro cooling into this 10th gen iMac. Knowing the hot issues with the 9th gen I9. 

I'm really doubting. I've waited months for this update to replace my old 2013 iMac, but not sure to jump in right now. Arghhhh


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

MGdepp said:


> Looks like this is not the previous iMac chassis with replaceable RAM.


RAM is replaceable in the 27inch. So you're able to update it yourself to 128GB RAM for under the 1000 bucks.


----------



## ridgero

gh0stwrit3r said:


> RAM is replaceable in the 27inch. So you're able to update it yourself to 128GB RAM for under the 1000 bucks.



I don‘t think so anymore :(

Not mentioned in the specs at all.


----------



## MGdepp

gh0stwrit3r said:


> RAM is replaceable in the 27inch. So you're able to update it yourself to 128GB RAM for under the 1000 bucks.


Where did you find that info? It wouldn’t be the Apple way (of the last decade) to re-design the motherboard and chassis while leaving users the option of replacing something Apple can make a lot of money by overcharging.


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

Under the technical specs from the 27inch (memory section) on the Apple site. I quote:


> 8GB (two 4GB) of 2666MHz DDR4 memory; four SO-DIMM slots, user accessible
> 
> Configurable to 16GB, 32GB, 64GB, or 128GB











iMac 24-inch - Technical Specifications


24-inch iMac. 4.5k Retina display. 8-core Apple M1 chip. Up to 16GB memory and 2TB of storage. See all technical specifications.



www.apple.com


----------



## ridgero

8GB (two 4GB) of 2666MHz DDR4 memory; four SO-DIMM slots, *user accessible*

Configurable to 16GB, 32GB, 64GB, or 128GB

thank god


----------



## Nate Johnson

So do we think t


ridgero said:


> 8GB (two 4GB) of 2666MHz DDR4 memory; four SO-DIMM slots, *user accessible*
> 
> Configurable to 16GB, 32GB, 64GB, or 128GB
> 
> thank god



So it should take the same ram sticks that OWC has been offering for ‘2019-current’ 27” iMac models, right? (I’ll probably still email them just in case)


----------



## rnb_2

MGdepp said:


> Where did you find that info? It wouldn’t be the Apple way (of the last decade) to re-design the motherboard and chassis while leaving users the option of replacing something Apple can make a lot of money by overcharging.



I don't think they redesigned anything - I'm guessing there's just a big empty space where the 3.5" hard disk used to live on the base configs.

My gut feeling is that, if you're concerned about cooling, the high-end standard configuration with the i7 is the best option. A few people on the forum have the 2019 i9, and have reported that they don't have many cooling issues. This year's i7 is very similar (8 cores/16 threads), but on a smaller process (10nm vs 14) and clocked slightly higher, so I'd guess that heat should be similar.

The availability of a standard i7 config this year really makes the line more attractive from a price perspective, especially for anyone upgrading from an earlier Retina iMac. With only i5 standard configs last year, you just couldn't get a decent improvement from an upgrade without getting the pricey i9, plus paying to upgrade from a Fusion Drive to SSD - you were often well into the mid-$3k range before touching the RAM. This year, if you don't need more than 512GB internal storage (most here probably don't, given external sample drives), you can probably get by with the base i7 and throw in some 3rd-party RAM and be set.


----------



## rnb_2

tomorrowstops said:


> So do we think t
> 
> So it should take the same ram sticks that OWC has been offering for ‘2019-current’ 27” iMac models, right? (I’ll probably still email them just in case)



I'm pretty sure they updated as soon as the new machines were announced (thus the New Item badges on all the iMacs).


----------



## emasters

Bitter irony... been waiting for a 128GB capable 27 inch iMac (not Pro), and here it is. Yet, looming in the near future is the Apple Silicon version that will obsolete Intel iMacs. Saw this happen with Apple during the PowerPC to Intel transition. Sigh...


----------



## Nate Johnson

rnb_2 said:


> I'm pretty sure they updated as soon as the new machines were announced (thus the New Item badges on all the iMacs).



Gotcha, I noticed that too!


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

rnb_2 said:


> I don't think they redesigned anything - I'm guessing there's just a big empty space where the 3.5" hard disk used to live on the base configs.
> 
> My gut feeling is that, if you're concerned about cooling, the high-end standard configuration with the i7 is the best option. A few people on the forum have the 2019 i9, and have reported that they don't have many cooling issues. This year's i7 is very similar (8 cores/16 threads), but on a smaller process (10nm vs 14) and clocked slightly higher, so I'd guess that heat should be similar.
> 
> The availability of a standard i7 config this year really makes the line more attractive from a price perspective, especially for anyone upgrading from an earlier Retina iMac. With only i5 standard configs last year, you just couldn't get a decent improvement from an upgrade without getting the pricey i9, plus paying to upgrade from a Fusion Drive to SSD - you were often well into the mid-$3k range before touching the RAM. This year, if you don't need more than 512GB internal storage (most here probably don't, given external sample drives), you can probably get by with the base i7 and throw in some 3rd-party RAM and be set.



Alright. That's an interesting comment. Maybe I have enough CPU power with the i7 without heating issues.

But is the i7 capable of running (let's say) 100+ individual tracks in Logic with orchestral vsts? Like the BBCSO pro template? If it is, then the i7 is a very interesting option and a great update from my i5 2013 iMac.

It is capable to handle 128GB of RAM? Isn't it?


----------



## dcoscina

I really kinda wish my older Mac Pro 3,1 didn't crap out in 2018... I needed a replacement computer and went for the MP 6,1 because the newer MP was still off by another 18 months and the imacs at the time were only quad core with an affinity for thermal throttling. I shouldn't complain though. the trashcan has lots of IO, can be upgraded to the 12 core and I've already maxed out the memory much cheaper and it's easier to get at than say a Mac Mini.... and I rarely use it now that I have an iPad Pro with StaffPad...


----------



## rnb_2

gh0stwrit3r said:


> Alright. That's an interesting comment. Maybe I have enough CPU power with the i7 without heating issues.
> 
> But is the i7 capable of running (let's say) 100+ individual tracks in Logic with orchestral vsts? Like the BBCSO pro template? If it is, then the i7 is a very interesting option and a great update from my i5 2013 iMac.
> 
> It is capable to handle 128GB of RAM? Isn't it?



Someone with the 2019 i9 would probably be able to give the best info - @gpax posted that he runs 50-60 orchestral tracks on his - but I would guess that the i7 should be able to handle a pretty big template. If you're able to buy RAM from OWC, 128GB is $599 for the 2019 and 2020 27" iMacs.


----------



## ironbut

Hmm, wonder if the 10 gen 10 core cpu will shoe horn into my 2019 i9 iMac?


----------



## rnb_2

rnb_2 said:


> I don't think they redesigned anything - I'm guessing there's just a big empty space where the 3.5" hard disk used to live on the base configs.
> 
> My gut feeling is that, if you're concerned about cooling, the high-end standard configuration with the i7 is the best option. A few people on the forum have the 2019 i9, and have reported that they don't have many cooling issues. This year's i7 is very similar (8 cores/16 threads), but on a smaller process (10nm vs 14) and clocked slightly higher, so I'd guess that heat should be similar.
> 
> The availability of a standard i7 config this year really makes the line more attractive from a price perspective, especially for anyone upgrading from an earlier Retina iMac. With only i5 standard configs last year, you just couldn't get a decent improvement from an upgrade without getting the pricey i9, plus paying to upgrade from a Fusion Drive to SSD - you were often well into the mid-$3k range before touching the RAM. This year, if you don't need more than 512GB internal storage (most here probably don't, given external sample drives), you can probably get by with the base i7 and throw in some 3rd-party RAM and be set.



Just did a bit more digging, and it appears that the 10th Gen desktop parts may still be 14nm (instead of 10) - it's hard to be certain because I don't think the processors that Apple is using are on Intel's site yet, as the specs don't line up. If they are 14nm, you might see a bit more heat from the 2020 i7 vs the 2019 i9, but I would guess that it shouldn't be a dramatic difference.


----------



## Rex282

gh0stwrit3r said:


> Alright. That's an interesting comment. Maybe I have enough CPU power with the i7 without heating issues.
> 
> But is the i7 capable of running (let's say) 100+ individual tracks in Logic with orchestral vsts? Like the BBCSO pro template? If it is, then the i7 is a very interesting option and a great update from my i5 2013 iMac.
> 
> It is capable to handle 128GB of RAM? Isn't it?


What seems to be very consistent for Macs is whatever Apple say is the max ram double it.Which if I'm correct they said the 2019 i9 could take 64gb ram whereas OWC says 128gb.Now Apple says 128gb for the 2020 i10 I am assuming that means 256 gb.Right now at OWC 128gb(4x32) is $600.The 4x64gb(for iMac Pro) is $1900.


----------



## Nate Johnson

dang it, now the ultimate question is 8 core vs 10 core. I had been planning on buying the 2019 i9 and putting 64gb of ram from OWC in it. But now I can get the new 10 core for basically the same price (actually $100 less than the 2019 config!) OR save a few hundo more and go with the 8 core. Either choice is massive step up from my 2013 Macbook Pro, but I don't want to short change myself either!


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

rnb_2 said:


> Just did a bit more digging, and it appears that the 10th Gen desktop parts may still be 14nm (instead of 10) - it's hard to be certain because I don't think the processors that Apple is using are on Intel's site yet, as the specs don't line up. If they are 14nm, you might see a bit more heat from the 2020 i7 vs the 2019 i9, but I would guess that it shouldn't be a dramatic difference.


The i9 9900K uses an 14nm chip too if I’m correctly. So that shouldn’t be a difference concerning heat.


----------



## rnb_2

gh0stwrit3r said:


> The i9 9900K uses an 14nm chip too if I’m correctly. So that shouldn’t be a difference concerning heat.



Yes, but the 2020 i7 runs at 3.8GHz vs 3.6GHz for the 2019 i9 - not a dramatic difference, but there might be a bit more heat from that.


----------



## Rex282

I understand when the computer is pushed that the fan can make some noise .I have a 2009 i7 iMac and I can hear it however I can never hear it when i'm working.Maybe I have hearing loss at the NOISY fans frequency even though I highly doubt it because IMO the music is much louder(even moderate levels( than the fan noise.My 2007 Mac Pro really makes some noise ...but it's on the floor under my desk and I can barely hear it even without the music up.Tinnitus is much more a noise factor for me.My main qualification for a rig computer is effeciency for my work flow ,no fan noise isn't even on the list...sorry I just dont get it.


----------



## Rex282

tomorrowstops said:


> dang it, now the ultimate question is 8 core vs 10 core. I had been planning on buying the 2019 i9 and putting 64gb of ram from OWC in it. But now I can get the new 10 core for basically the same price (actually $100 less than the 2019 config!) OR save a few hundo more and go with the 8 core. Either choice is massive step up from my 2013 Macbook Pro, but I don't want to short change myself either!


hell you're going to save $100 and get two more cores(+ 2 virtual... 4 total) why wouldn't you go for 128gb of ram(or maybe 256!!) and not buy twice.


----------



## rnb_2

Rex282 said:


> I understand when the computer is pushed that the fan can make some noise .I have a 2009 i7 iMac and I can hear it however I can never hear it when i'm working.Maybe I have hearing loss at the NOISY fans frequency even though I highly doubt it because IMO the music is much louder(even moderate levels( than the fan noise.My 2007 Mac Pro really makes some noise ...but it's on the floor under my desk and I can barely hear it even without the music up.Tinnitus is much more a noise factor for me.My main qualification for a rig computer is effeciency for my work flow ,no fan noise isn't even on the list...sorry I just dont get it.



While there are certainly people for whom fan noise is a concern - and different people are more sensitive to that kind of noise than others - I think that for many composers, fan noise indicates that the system is getting hot, and a hot machine might throttle the CPU if the fan can't cool things down enough. So, it's not so much the noise of the fan, but a concern that CPU performance might be unpredictable if the cooling isn't able to keep up, and that could be a major issue for composers.


----------



## motomotomoto

A bit bittersweet for me. I need to upgrade but with the impending ARM switch, I will wait till my current set up is untenable, and then assess where I can get with an ARM Mac or switch to the windows world again.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

gh0stwrit3r said:


> Like the BBCSO pro template?



For what its worth, I can load the BBCSO Pro library into Logic on my 2013 MB Pro (with a single instrument per instance). Its only uses 10.5 GB RAM.


----------



## Rory

Jeremy Spencer said:


> For what its worth, I can load the BBCSO Pro library into Logic on my 2013 MB Pro (with a single instrument per instance). Its only uses 10.5 GB RAM.



Thanks, I just purchased Pro and it's very helpful to know that.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

MGdepp said:


> The $6000+ investment mighy only be worth pennies over night



I spec'd one one on the Apple site, with the i9, 8GB Ram and 1TB SSD for $2800 USD. With an extra $1000 for RAM, that's $4K for a sweet iMac.


----------



## MGdepp

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I spec'd one one on the Apple site, with the i9, 8GB Ram and 1TB SSD for $2800 USD. With an extra $1000 for RAM, that's $4K for a sweet iMac.


I wrote that under the impression you would need to buy the ram from Apple. I stand corrected.


----------



## Rex282

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I spec'd one one on the Apple site, with the i9, 8GB Ram and 1TB SSD for $2800 USD. With an extra $1000 for RAM, that's $4K for a sweet iMac.


Actually OWC 128gb ram is $600








Memory Upgrades for 2019-2020 iMac 27-Inch - Up to 128GB


Upgrade the memory of your 27-inch 2019-2020 iMac up to 128GB. OWC memory kits are 100% Apple compatible and backed by a lifetime OWC warranty.




eshop.macsales.com


----------



## synthesizerwriter

When I bought my i9 27" iMac, my Apple business adviser revised my quote down to 8 gigs of RAM and suggested I buy extra RAM separately...


----------



## gpax

Our needs will vary, but all I can say regarding my 8-core i9 2019 iMac is that it perfectly fits the demands I place on it, with headroom to spare, and which last year was a bit of a “secret” in terms of it rivaling the lowest (performance) specs of an iMac Pro at the time.

Connectivity (TB ports) is where the iMac is arguably (and subjectively) limited for me (compared to leaping to a higher price point), insofar as I have two Blackmagic docks taking priority of the i/o, and hence stay with USB 2.0 for my audio interface (which supports an ADAT for my external synths). But it’s a limitation of luxury, as I’ve not hit any bottlenecks with a plethora of gear attached. Even as I ponder an upgrade to my audio interface, a brand new RME Babyface FS I’m looking at is still USB 2.0. 

In terms of performance, the full BBCSO template did not break a sweat, though that was only test-driving it last Fall (and again yesterday to temper this discussion); my template is still a hybrid of libraries. To clarify my mentioning 50 instances I routinely use (was that a different thread?), half of that is loading multiple keyswitch instances, which is just a preferred workflow. So where others parse out single articulations, many of my “single” tracks are instances of fully loaded articulations, with 2-3 mic positions engaged as well.

FWIW, my prior system was a “compromise” late 2015 Retina iMac with i7 processors (purchased in 2016). Prior to that, my workhorse was a constantly pimped out 2008 cheese grater Mac Pro. The three year gap between iMacs was a personal turn-around record for me: the first iMac was an in-stock purchase based on the budget at the time. I actually got $600 trade-in for it last year, btw. 

When the fan revs now, maybe every two weeks or so for a minute, it’s quite frankly not the iMac, but lesser or even poorly coded software plugins I can pinpoint (some by name). The difference between the 2015 i7 and 2019 i9 for me, has been precisely throwing things at it while working and not having to hold my breadth. The i9 forgives, while I could make the earlier i7 iMac choke - but only if I tried. Speaking of, I’m trying to recall a recent thread that linked to a template to push the 2019 i9 to its knees. But who puts a single reverb on each of seventy five tracks of virtual instruments? 

I used to try and “future proof” for a longer trajectory, but I now approach these tools as having a shelf-life, where I will assess where I am in two more years (or where ARM-based Macs compel, including seaming my iPad within the workflow). Just speaking personally, I jumped off the head-trip ship years ago in the ”should I buy, or should I wait“ debate, as the dreaded obsolescence - which really never suddenly showed up - is the antithesis of getting a great tool to fit the need as it arises.

I hear people weighing 8-cores against 10, but for me, the choice in processor, as with memory, is about the reality of how I actually work. As I have spoken elsewhere about dealing with progressive blindness, the cost factor of a brightness/nits and screen resolution is what steered me toward the iMac also, after the pre-Intel and post-Intel Mac Pro years, with separate monitors. My husband, working from home now, purchased an LG Ultrafine for his MacBook Pro, which looks fantastic to me. 

I wish there was a method for users to type in their work habits and composing needs, then have the algorithm spit out what is the right tool.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

MGdepp said:


> I wrote that under the impression you would need to buy the ram from Apple. I stand corrected.



I just can’t believe the insane prices Apple charges for Ram!


----------



## jtnyc

Can anyone comment on i7 vs i9 regarding single core efficiency vs heating issues? I am a Logic user and single core is my biggest concern over multi core as that never seems to an issue. Even on my 2008 Mac Pro the only time I have a show stopping cpu issue is when I have a record enabled instrument track with a heavy VI in a busy project and it slams a single core, otherwise large busy projects run quite smoothly. I realize the i9 is probably the way to go, but then I hear they create more heating issues. Is this true? I’m seriously considering the 10 core i9, just want to know as much as I can before buying

Thanks


----------



## motomotomoto

jtnyc said:


> Can anyone comment on i7 vs i9 regarding single core efficiency vs heating issues? I am a Logic user and single core is my biggest concern over multi core as that never seems to an issue. Even on my 2008 Mac Pro the only time I have a show stopping cpu issue is when I have a record enabled instrument track with a heavy VI in a busy project And it slams a single core, otherwise large busy projects run quite smoothly. I realize the i9 is probably the way to go, but then I hear they create more heating issues. Is this true? I’m seriously considering the 10 core i9, just want to know as much as I can before buying
> 
> Thanks



I have the same question actually!


----------



## jtnyc

Also - the 8 core i7 is 3.8 GHz while the 10 core i9 is 3.6 GHz

its a very small different I know, but for single core processing?


----------



## P3TAAL

jtnyc said:


> Can anyone comment on i7 vs i9 regarding single core efficiency vs heating issues? I am a Logic user and single core is my biggest concern over multi core as that never seems to an issue. Even on my 2008 Mac Pro the only time I have a show stopping cpu issue is when I have a record enabled instrument track with a heavy VI in a busy project and it slams a single core, otherwise large busy projects run quite smoothly. I realize the i9 is probably the way to go, but then I hear they create more heating issues. Is this true? I’m seriously considering the 10 core i9, just want to know as much as I can before buying
> 
> Thanks


Another one here with the same question. I'm looking at the i9 10 core. I think I might wait until one of them YouTube people get there hands on one👍


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

I’m waiting for the moment this iMac will appear in the Geekbench 5 Benchmark OS. That will give us some ideas how it actually performs within the new iMac. Hopefully some videos with a Logic Pro X stress test will be posted on YT too. Then we’ll know what we’re dealing with. For now, I still keep my money in my pocket.


----------



## gpax

This is only indicative of my current machine, though no doubt some have already seen the results: 



Mac Benchmarks - Geekbench Browser


----------



## jtnyc

I so want to pull the trigger on this new iMac. Most likely the 10 core i9 with a 1tb ssd, and add 64 gigs of OWC ram.

I am still debating the standard glass or the nano texture display. I am very used to my old Mac cinema display which is a matte finish. Whenever I've been to an Apple store and checked out the glass displays, I didn't like the amount of reflection I saw. I think I would get used to it (I hope anyway) and it probably won't be as bad as in the bright store. I'm just not sure. The nano option does come with a warning that you can only clean it with a special cloth the they supply. It seems that it is on the fragile side. This is a turnoff for me, so that leaves me quite undecided on the display.

Anyone out there have any experience with the nano texture? It was introduced as an option with their Pro XDR display.


----------



## José Herring

Fairly underwhelming spec wise. I'm waiting for the new Arm processor Macs to unveil.


----------



## rnb_2

I think you're going to see very similar single core performance from the i7 and i9 processors - they both turbo boost to 5GHz (same as last year's i9). If you look at Geekbench, there is no relationship between the base clock and single core performance, as the top scores are the 2019 i9 iMac (highest turbo boost clock), two 2020 13" MacBook Pros, and the 2020 MacBook Air. It's all about the turbo boost frequency and chip generation - the scores for the 10th gen Air and 13" MBPs scale directly from turbo boost speed.

The 10th Generation chips appear to be a fair bit faster than the 9th, though I'm not certain if that will apply as directly to the desktop chips in the iMac. If it does, we should see single core Geekbench 5 scores right around 1500, perhaps a bit faster.


----------



## Nate Johnson

jtnyc said:


> I so want to pull the trigger on this new iMac. Most likely the 10 core i9 with a 1tb ssd, and add 64 gigs of OWC ram



Thats exactly the specs I want too! Can’t comment on the matte glass option, but my wife runs 2 regular glass 27” models for her photography biz and has zero complaints about reflectivity. I run a 32” monitor with regular glass, and no complaints either!


----------



## Michael Antrum

I had to replace my laptop last year before the 16” was launched. I bailed on Apple and went to PC.

I got a Razer Blade 15” with 2 tb and 64gb. It was half the price of the equivalent MacBook Pro at the time, which had A 32 Gb RAM limit. There was no way I was going to spend a ton of money on a compromised product. Thermal issues and a faulty keyboard design for top end money - no thank you, Mr Cook.

Do I miss OSX - absolutely.
Do I regret getting the Razer - no I’m really happy with it.

Will I go back to a MacBook Pro - if it’s a good product - yes.

I‘m just hoping my trusty 2009 Mac Pro tower will keep the desktop sorted until the neW CPUs are sorted....


----------



## edhamilton

Michael Antrum said:


> I had to replace my laptop last year before the 16” was launched. I bailed on Apple and went to PC.
> 
> I got a Razer Blade 15” with 2 tb and 64gb.
> 
> Do I miss OSX - absolutely.
> Do I regret getting the Razer - no I’m really happy with it.
> 
> Will I go back to a MacBook Pro - if it’s a good product - yes.
> 
> I‘m just hoping my trusty 2009 Mac Pro tower will keep the desktop sorted until the neW CPUs are sorted....



Can you expand on missing OSX?

Thinking of going PC - and other than running a DAW - I wouldn't use any other applications.
Wondering if I'd miss OSX at all ??
thanks!


----------



## Michael Antrum

I just prefer OSX - it’s a personal preference.

I find it much simpler to live with than Windows, and much less messing about with drivers etc - so I would prefer to go back to OSX, but not at any price......

I’m very happy with the Razer, with the exception of battery life - but it’s not a deal breaker for me. I saved getting on for £2k ! But it was more the hardware problems with the Macbook Pro that pushed me to PC.


----------



## Jenna Fearon

I've been using (and building) PCs since the early 90s, and being a game developer all this time it's pretty much a given that I stick with that platform (aside from the time I used SGIs for a few years; _dream come true!_)

A year or so ago I bought an iMac 27" to do a Mac port of a game, and used it a bit but not a ton. There was definitely something special going on there, though, some sort of elegance. I liked it. The iMac felt really nice, and holy hell, that screen was divine! I ended up selling it after the project was finished, however, since I really wasn't going to use it, being 'tied' to PCs for development.

Annnnyyywwwayyy... cutting to the chase, as of this month, I'm semi-retired from game dev. Still working on the projects we have going, but in a far less time consuming capacity. I'm focusing more on music and film, which are the other things I've loved all my life.

So, to _fully_ immerse myself in those pursuits, and remove myself the daily PC habit, I bought one of the new iMacs. I got it literally the day before the new ones came out, but Apple kindly let me cancel the order and get a 2020 version. The temptation was strong to go with the i9, but I also wanted a 1TB internal drive and had a budget limit, so I went with the 3.8Ghz i7 8 core, which I imagine is still going to be totally awesome. Going to kit it out myself with a ton of RAM and a larger external drive (likely M.2 when OWC's NVME enclosure ships).

I'm super excited to change things up and make this new system my daily driver, surrounded by musical and film-making inspiration, with none of the trappings of game dev to distract me. The PCs are still here for that. Can't wait to get it set up!!


----------



## jtnyc

tomorrowstops said:


> Thats exactly the specs I want too! Can’t comment on the matte glass option, but my wife runs 2 regular glass 27” models for her photography biz and has zero complaints about reflectivity. I run a 32” monitor with regular glass, and no complaints either!


Thanks for that take on the glass. I think that might make the most sense being that I can’t compare them in person. Also I don’t like the sound of it being so delicate you can only clean it with a special cloth, and it will save me $500.

looking forward to seeing some benchmarks...


----------



## Ashermusic

Jenna Fearon said:


> I've been using (and building) PCs since the early 90s, and being a game developer all this time it's pretty much a given that I stick with that platform (aside from the time I used SGIs for a few years; _dream come true!_)
> 
> A year or so ago I bought an iMac 27" to do a Mac port of a game, and used it a bit but not a ton. There was definitely something special going on there, though, some sort of elegance. I liked it. The iMac felt really nice, and holy hell, that screen was divine! I ended up selling it after the project was finished, however, since I really wasn't going to use it, being 'tied' to PCs for development.
> 
> Annnnyyywwwayyy... cutting to the chase, as of this month, I'm semi-retired from game dev. Still working on the projects we have going, but in a far less time consuming capacity. I'm focusing more on music and film, which are the other things I've loved all my life.
> 
> So, to _fully_ immerse myself in those pursuits, and remove myself the daily PC habit, I bought one of the new iMacs. I got it literally the day before the new ones came out, but Apple kindly let me cancel the order and get a 2020 version. The temptation was strong to go with the i9, but I also wanted a 1TB internal drive and had a budget limit, so I went with the 3.8Ghz i7 8 core, which I imagine is still going to be totally awesome. Going to kit it out myself with a ton of RAM and a larger external drive (likely M.2 when OWC's NVME enclosure ships).
> 
> I'm super excited to change things up and make this new system my daily driver, surrounded by musical and film-making inspiration, with none of the trappings of game dev to distract me. The PCs are still here for that. Can't wait to get it set up!!




Let me know when you want to learn Logic Pro X


----------



## storyteller

jtnyc said:


> I so want to pull the trigger on this new iMac. Most likely the 10 core i9 with a 1tb ssd, and add 64 gigs of OWC ram.


Same. (but probably 128gb ram from OWC). It seems like the sweet spot for performance vs. price compared to Mac Pro, iMac Pro, etc.


----------



## Jenna Fearon

Ashermusic said:


> Let me know when you want to learn Logic Pro X


I've got it coming along with Final Cut Pro, and looking forward to diving in! I see that you're an expert so if I need any tips I'll give you a shout.


----------



## MisteR

jtnyc said:


> Thanks for that take on the glass. I think that might make the most sense being that I can’t compare them in person. Also I don’t like the sound of it being so delicate you can only clean it with a special cloth, and it will save me $500.
> 
> looking forward to seeing some benchmarks...


It’s been nine years, and I have never gotten used to glass. Thought I would adjust, but never happened, so I look forward to the new screen. Basically to fight reflectivity, you turn the brightness up. Then you get eyestrain. So you turn the brightness down and the reflections are more apparent and... you get eyestrain. Not kidding, first thing I did was buy a blackout shade for the window. That helped, but even the ambient light in the room can be annoying. Ymmv, but if you’re worried and asking, maybe you should try the new screen. Bet it’s not as fragile as it sounds.


----------



## GtrString

The new iMacs look interesting. So what’s the verdict on DiY configurations:

Can you upgrade the RAM?

Can you upgrade the SSD?


----------



## P3TAAL

GtrString said:


> The new iMacs look interesting. So what’s the verdict on DiY configurations:
> 
> Can you upgrade the RAM?
> 
> Can you upgrade the SSD?



Yes you can upgrade the RAM,

Pretty sure you cannot upgrade the SSD at least not easily


----------



## GtrString

P3TAAL said:


> Yes you can upgrade the RAM,
> 
> Pretty sure you cannot upgrade the SSD at least not easily



Right, like the Mini then? But are the SSD's soldered, or why you can't upgrade that?


----------



## P3TAAL

GtrString said:


> Right, like the Mini then? But are the SSD's soldered, or why you can't upgrade that?



Not sure if it is soldered or not but there is just no easy way to get at it,


----------



## wayne_rowley

GtrString said:


> Right, like the Mini then? But are the SSD's soldered, or why you can't upgrade that?



We'd need to have one opened up to be sure, but as these new iMacs have the T2 chip, I strongly suspect the SSD to be soldered on to the motherboard. 

I'm quite tempted to replace my Mini with one of these new iMacs. I need to see some feedback on performance and noise.

128GB of ram with a 10 core processor look like a powerful combination, that should handle all of my musical project needs for years to come.


----------



## ridgero

rnb_2 said:


> Yes, but the 2020 i7 runs at 3.8GHz vs 3.6GHz for the 2019 i9 - not a dramatic difference, but there might be a bit more heat from that.



Base clock doesn‘t matter, Boost matters.


----------



## Ashermusic

wayne_rowley said:


> We'd need to have one opened up to be sure, but as these new iMacs have the T2 chip, I strongly suspect the SSD to be soldered on to the motherboard.
> 
> I'm quite tempted to replace my Mini with one of these new iMacs. I need to see some feedback on performance and noise.
> 
> 128GB of ram with a 10 core processor look like a powerful combination, that should handle all of my musical project needs for years to come.



What year is your Mini? If it can use 64 GB, let me know if you decide to sell it.


----------



## Mike Marino

P3TAAL said:


> Not sure if it is soldered or not but there is just no easy way to get at it,


Saw this in a Mac Rumors article today:
"A source with access to Apple's repair manuals tells _MacRumors_ that the SSD is in fact not soldered to the logic board but is connected to a proprietary Apple slot on the board"


----------



## wayne_rowley

Ashermusic said:


> What year is your Mini? If it can use 64 GB, let me know if you decide to sell it.



It‘s 2018 and can take 64gb. Currently has 32gb. I am however based in the UK.


----------



## Symfoniq

Mike Marino said:


> Saw this in a Mac Rumors article today:
> "A source with access to Apple's repair manuals tells _MacRumors_ that the SSD is in fact not soldered to the logic board but is connected to a proprietary Apple slot on the board"



This seems entirely likely to me. The iMac Pro and Mac Pro SSDs aren't soldered, either, but do use a proprietary pinout. Apple is probably using similar SSD modules for the 2020 iMac, too.


----------



## wayne_rowley

Symfoniq said:


> This seems entirely likely to me. The iMac Pro and Mac Pro SSDs aren't soldered, either, but do use a proprietary pinout. Apple is probably using similar SSD modules for the 2020 iMac, too.



That would be good news - for repair or upgrade.


----------



## gsilbers

those 10th generation cpus are the ones being very got. 

hopefully the reviews will check and see if they heat up fast and get loud fannoise like the laptops.


----------



## Tronam

gsilbers said:


> those 10th generation cpus are the ones being very got.
> 
> hopefully the reviews will check and see if they heat up fast and get loud fannoise like the laptops.


If it's anything like my 27" i9 2019 iMac, then it should remain mostly silent the majority of the time even under heavier CPU load. In my experience over the past year the only time the fans really start to spin up to the point of getting loud is when the CPU *and* GPU are being hit hard. The fans are quite audible in gaming, but rarely so during something like music production.

Even in gaming I've noticed the fans will modulate based on the graphics settings. For example, if I play World of Warcraft at 1080/1440p the fans will be fairly quiet, but if I crank it up to native 5K they'll be noticeably louder. The newer iMacs should benefit from AMD's newer fabrication process for their GPUs, so theoretically they should run cooler than my older VEGA 48. I guess we'll find out shortly as more reviewers start testing them.


----------



## bradbecker

Jenna Fearon said:


> I've been using (and building) PCs since the early 90s, and being a game developer all this time it's pretty much a given that I stick with that platform (aside from the time I used SGIs for a few years; _dream come true!_)
> 
> A year or so ago I bought an iMac 27" to do a Mac port of a game, and used it a bit but not a ton. There was definitely something special going on there, though, some sort of elegance. I liked it. The iMac felt really nice, and holy hell, that screen was divine! I ended up selling it after the project was finished, however, since I really wasn't going to use it, being 'tied' to PCs for development.
> 
> Annnnyyywwwayyy... cutting to the chase, as of this month, I'm semi-retired from game dev. Still working on the projects we have going, but in a far less time consuming capacity. I'm focusing more on music and film, which are the other things I've loved all my life.
> 
> So, to _fully_ immerse myself in those pursuits, and remove myself the daily PC habit, I bought one of the new iMacs. I got it literally the day before the new ones came out, but Apple kindly let me cancel the order and get a 2020 version. The temptation was strong to go with the i9, but I also wanted a 1TB internal drive and had a budget limit, so I went with the 3.8Ghz i7 8 core, which I imagine is still going to be totally awesome. Going to kit it out myself with a ton of RAM and a larger external drive (likely M.2 when OWC's NVME enclosure ships).
> 
> I'm super excited to change things up and make this new system my daily driver, surrounded by musical and film-making inspiration, with none of the trappings of game dev to distract me. The PCs are still here for that. Can't wait to get it set up!!



Have fun! Btw, have you thought about working on adaptive scores via FMOD/WWISE/etc?


----------



## JEPA

Gals & Guys I need your help!

My system:
- Mac Pro 4.1 flashed to 5.1
- 2 x 3,33GHz - 6 Core Intel Xeon (12 Threads)
- System SSD 1TB
- System HDD 4TB
- RAM 48GB

* I can run until 50 tracks free of freezing. Between 50-100 tracks depending on channel strips and plugins it could run flawlessly or being a pain in the ass.
* I can not run Massive X due to metal (I should change my graphic card)

My aprox. next budget: €2400


Should I increase RAM, change graphic card?
Should I buy a new iMac and sell my old Mac Pro 5.1?
Should I buy a PC full specs and work with Reaper (I own the license)?
Should I buy VSL, Orchestral Tools, Spitfire professional, AudioImperia, Heavyocity, Strezov on Black Friday instead and wait?
Should I save money for difficult times over winter in this pandemic times?
thanks in advance!


----------



## Tronam

JEPA said:


> Gals & Guys I need your help!
> 
> My system:
> - Mac Pro 4.1 flashed to 5.1
> - 2 x 3,33GHz - 6 Core Intel Xeon (12 Threads)
> - System SSD 1TB
> - System HDD 4TB
> - RAM 48GB
> 
> * I can run until 50 tracks free of freezing. Between 50-100 tracks depending on channel strips and plugins it could run flawlessly or being a pain in the ass.
> * I can not run Massive X due to metal (I should change my graphic card)
> 
> My aprox. next budget: €2400
> 
> 
> Should I increase RAM, change graphic card?
> Should I buy a new iMac and sell my old Mac Pro 5.1?
> Should I buy a PC full specs and work with Reaper (I own the license)?
> Should I buy VSL, Orchestral Tools, Spitfire professional, AudioImperia, Heavyocity, Strezov on Black Friday instead and wait?
> Should I save money for difficult times over winter in this pandemic times?
> thanks in advance!


If the main goal is sample library based music production then RAM is far more important than the graphics card, and even the CPU in some cases. Just don’t buy it from Apple. The 27” is fully user upgradeable and going 3rd party can save a ridiculous amount of money. I usually get my RAM from Crucial. I think it was 32GB for ~$90.

I’m most fond of Spitfire and OT, but they all have great libraries. They’re quite expensive though, so I’d definitely wait for Black Friday. The only other time I’ve seen deeper discounts for Spitfire is on Xmas.

There’s nothing wrong with going the PC route. I’ve done this a number of times over the years and there are some definite advantages, but be prepared for a lengthy migration process when it comes to 3rd party plugins and older project compatibility. If I were to do this I’d probably just keep the Mac Pro around for past projects and start new ones on the PC to make things as painless as possible. This is where a new iMac would result in less overall “technical friction”. I used to build custom PCs and upgrade them all the time, but over the years I’ve grown weary of the geeky maintenance involved and simply want a stable, quiet and dependable platform for making music. I’ve also grown quite fond of Logic.

If I felt financially insecure though I’d probably make do with what I have. Needless to say, this has been a weird year and we’re not out of the woods yet.


----------



## JEPA

Tronam said:


> If the main goal is sample library based music production then RAM is far more important than the graphics card, and even the CPU in some cases. Just don’t buy it from Apple. The 27” is fully user upgradeable and going 3rd party can save a ridiculous amount of money. I usually get my RAM from Crucial. I think it was 32GB for ~$90.
> 
> I’m most fond of Spitfire and OT, but they all have great libraries. They’re quite expensive though, so I’d definitely wait for Black Friday. The only other time I’ve seen deeper discounts for Spitfire is on Xmas.
> 
> There’s nothing wrong with going the PC route. I’ve done this a number of times over the years and there are some definite advantages, but be prepared for a lengthy migration process when it comes to 3rd party plugins and older project compatibility. If I were to do this I’d probably just keep the Mac Pro around for past projects and start new ones on the PC to make things as painless as possible. This is where a new iMac would result in less overall “technical friction”. I used to build custom PCs and upgrade them all the time, but over the years I’ve grown weary of the geeky maintenance involved and simply want a stable, quiet and dependable platform for making music. I’ve also grown quite fond of Logic.
> 
> If I felt financially insecure though I’d probably make do with what I have. Needless to say, this has been a weird year and we’re not out of the woods yet.


I was a windows user long time ago... after Mac switch in 2011 I've never looked back, but Apple is setting the game very difficult. On the other hand what you say about "less overall technical friction" is a plus point. I work mainly with Logic. I have worked with other DAWs as well, I would adapt again. Other advantage is what you also say: "quiet and dependable platform for making music" = that's Apple's Logic + Mac for me... so I will have to play chess with my possibilities and make the better out of it. If I stay Mac I could sell the old computer... Let's see! Thanks for your answer!


----------



## Jenna Fearon

bradbecker said:


> Have fun! Btw, have you thought about working on adaptive scores via FMOD/WWISE/etc?


I've given some thought to getting further involved with adaptive game scoring, but I'm not sure yet whether I want to spend too much more time in that arena. At this point after 26+ years in games, I need some time away from it, for sure.


----------



## ironbut

I could be dreaming but IIRC, the inclusion of the T2 security chip makes the system ssd an Apple only exchange no matter if it's soldered or not? 
Same with the cpu.


----------



## Michael Antrum

JEPA said:


> Gals & Guys I need your help!
> 
> My system:
> - Mac Pro 4.1 flashed to 5.1
> - 2 x 3,33GHz - 6 Core Intel Xeon (12 Threads)
> - System SSD 1TB
> - System HDD 4TB
> - RAM 48GB
> 
> * I can run until 50 tracks free of freezing. Between 50-100 tracks depending on channel strips and plugins it could run flawlessly or being a pain in the ass.
> * I can not run Massive X due to metal (I should change my graphic card)
> 
> My aprox. next budget: €2400
> 
> 
> Should I increase RAM, change graphic card?
> Should I buy a new iMac and sell my old Mac Pro 5.1?
> Should I buy a PC full specs and work with Reaper (I own the license)?
> Should I buy VSL, Orchestral Tools, Spitfire professional, AudioImperia, Heavyocity, Strezov on Black Friday instead and wait?
> Should I save money for difficult times over winter in this pandemic times?
> thanks in advance!



You can put old HP server Ram in your 4,1. There‘s a Facebook group called Mac Pro upgrades, and I’ve seen 128gb going for not much more than 100 bucks. You should definitely do that.

I‘d otherwise save money, I’ve got a feeling that the end of the year is not going to be much fun, and you might be glad of having a reserve.

no matter what anyone else says, I’d wait until we the the new Apple CPU Macs are available before making a major investment. Your Mac Pro is 11 years old. (So is mine).

I don’t see anyone getting that kind of longevity from an intel Mac being purchased now once the software starts to migrate.


----------



## P3TAAL

Hi Guys, 

I'm looking at getting the middle tier 27" iMac with the 10 core 10th gen upgrade but it comes with the 'Radeon Pro 5300 with 4GB of GDDR6 memory' graphics card as apposed to the 'Radeon Pro 5500 XT with 8GB of GDDR6 memory' on the higher level model. 

A question for those with a bit more knowledge is would i see any benefit in getting the better graphics card. I am only really using this for Logic and could save myself a couple of hundred pounds. 

Thanks


----------



## wayne_rowley

P3TAAL said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I'm looking at getting the middle tier 27" iMac with the 10 core 10th gen upgrade but it comes with the 'Radeon Pro 5300 with 4GB of GDDR6 memory' graphics card as apposed to the 'Radeon Pro 5500 XT with 8GB of GDDR6 memory' on the higher level model.
> 
> A question for those with a bit more knowledge is would i see any benefit in getting the better graphics card. I am only really using this for Logic and could save myself a couple of hundred pounds.
> 
> Thanks



I can‘t think of any issues. If you are not gaming or doing heavy video editing, then the 5300 should be fine. I’d probably go the same route.


----------



## P3TAAL

wayne_rowley said:


> I can‘t think of any issues. If you are not gaming or doing heavy video editing, then the 5300 should be fine. I’d probably go the same route.



Thanks, Yes I think that's the one I will go for as I won't be gaming at all and only light video work for fun if any at all.


----------



## wayne_rowley

Some clarity on the SSD: it seems that all but the 4TB and 8TB are soldered to 
board.









New 27-Inch iMac's Storage Affixed to Logic Board, 4TB and 8TB Configurations Have Expansion Connector


Following a report from German blog iFun.de that claimed the new 27-inch iMac's flash storage is soldered to the logic board, MacRumors has...




www.macrumors.com


----------



## wayne_rowley

Benchmarks for the new iMac are creeping in. The low-end 27inch model with the i5 3.1 seems around 20% faster than the previous i5 - which makes sense as these have hyper threading and the previous ones did not.

Seen conflicting reports on the 8 core i7 though. One showing around 9700 multicore (which puts it quite a bit faster than the i9 9900), but another showing only 7000 multicore - which is slower than the i9 9900!

Nothing on the 10 core i9 yet.


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

wayne_rowley said:


> Some clarity on the SSD: it seems that all but the 4TB and 8TB are soldered to
> board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New 27-Inch iMac's Storage Affixed to Logic Board, 4TB and 8TB Configurations Have Expansion Connector
> 
> 
> Following a report from German blog iFun.de that claimed the new 27-inch iMac's flash storage is soldered to the logic board, MacRumors has...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.macrumors.com


Thanks for pointing to this post. I think this is a major drawback. At least, for me it’ll be.


----------



## P3TAAL

gh0stwrit3r said:


> Thanks for pointing to this post. I think this is a major drawback. At least, for me it’ll be.


Would you consider upgrading the SSD? I believe you would have to take the front glass off to get to it!!. Bit too scary for me. I think I'll just order it with the 1TB


----------



## wayne_rowley

P3TAAL said:


> Would you consider upgrading the SSD? I believe you would have to take the front glass off to get to it!!. Bit too scary for me. I think I'll just order it with the 1TB



That’s the point, the SSD cannot be upgraded as the chips are soldered to the motherboard. It seems that if you order one with 4 or 8 TB SSDs then these could in theory be upgraded as they are fitted in a different way. In practice though you would have to do it through Apple as iMacs are not user servicable.

Soldered SSD is not a big deal for me, as my Mac Mini has a soldered SSD as well. I just back up regularly. It’s a dealbreaker for others.

For me it will come down to the performance (I want double what my Mini can deliver in multi core) and noise. Early benchmarks of the i7 though are lower than I would like.


----------



## edhamilton

First geekbench scores are floating out there (but not on geekbench yet).

8 core is 9700.

If the 10 core breaks 10k - it will be blow past the 10 core iMac Pro.


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

FWIW, Macrumors has changed the iMac status from ‘buy now’ to ‘caution’. Just after three days of release.


----------



## P3TAAL

wayne_rowley said:


> That’s the point, the SSD cannot be upgraded as the chips are soldered to the motherboard. It seems that if you order one with 4 or 8 TB SSDs then these could in theory be upgraded as they are fitted in a different way. In practice though you would have to do it through Apple as iMacs are not user servicable.
> 
> Soldered SSD is not a big deal for me, as my Mac Mini has a soldered SSD as well. I just back up regularly. It’s a dealbreaker for others.
> 
> For me it will come down to the performance (I want double what my Mini can deliver in multi core) and noise. Early benchmarks of the i7 though are lower than I would like.


Yes I am also waiting to hear about the noise level on the 10 core i9, Just want to find out if they kick in regular or not. I could put up with little & infrequent fan noise. My 2014 iMac i5 is really struggling at the moment! so I really need to upgrade.


----------



## edhamilton

gh0stwrit3r said:


> FWIW, Macrumors has changed the iMac status from ‘buy now’ to ‘caution’. Just after three days of release.


Rumors are for a new imac/imacpro that looks more like the pro display.
super thin bevel on the edges instead of the large black area currently.
Caution is probably a next spring reveal although I'd like to see it sooner.
But any new model would have to ship in Sept for the holiday blitz and a refresh in august seems like that will mean no new iMac until next year.


----------



## SGordB

FWIW, during his preliminary YouTube review, Marques Brownlee flashed these Geekbench 5 results for the 10-core 19: 
1195, 9613
But he didn't cite a source.
Based on the numbers I've seen so far for various configs, it looks like they may be all over the place before we have stable benchmark averages.


----------



## SGordB

This just in: 
Bottom line: this fellow gets benchmark performance wth the 8-core i7 that’s substantially better than the 2019 8-core i9.


----------



## rnb_2

rnb_2 said:


> I think you're going to see very similar single core performance from the i7 and i9 processors - they both turbo boost to 5GHz (same as last year's i9). If you look at Geekbench, there is no relationship between the base clock and single core performance, as the top scores are the 2019 i9 iMac (highest turbo boost clock), two 2020 13" MacBook Pros, and the 2020 MacBook Air. It's all about the turbo boost frequency and chip generation - the scores for the 10th gen Air and 13" MBPs scale directly from turbo boost speed.
> 
> The 10th Generation chips appear to be a fair bit faster than the 9th, though I'm not certain if that will apply as directly to the desktop chips in the iMac. If it does, we should see single core Geekbench 5 scores right around 1500, perhaps a bit faster.



I guess we got our answer on whether the desktop parts would have the same improvement as the mobile - looks like "no". The new 8-core i7 is a bit faster in Geekbench than last year's 8-core i9, but only marginally. It does appear that Apple is being less conservative with cooling and pushing the processor hard, though, so some tests are showing more improvement than Geekbench would lead you to expect.


----------



## wayne_rowley

10 core iMac: 1088 single core, 9264 multi core. Apparantly the fan does spin up under load. That is where the iMac Pro trumps it, more effective and quieter cooling.









2020 iMac review: The last picture show


This has got to be the end, right? Apple has announced that it’s moving the Mac to Apple-designed processors. The design of the iMac is stale and in desperate need of reinvention–just a…




sixcolors.com





So performance at multicore is almost double that of my 6 core Mac Mini. But my Mini is silent 99% of the time. Decisions...


----------



## P3TAAL

Yes decisions indeed, I think I am going to have to go for the 10 core i9 with the Radeon Pro 5300 graphics. And test for myself. Didn't someone say there is a 14 day return period?. 
I was speaking to an apple guy today who was surprised when I mentioned my concern about possible fan noise. I also asked about the 5300 graphics card. He seemed to imply this might run cooler than a higher spec card. He was more customer support though as he said I could speak to one of the tech geeks if required.


----------



## Geoff Grace

rnb_2 said:


> I guess we got our answer on whether the desktop parts would have the same improvement as the mobile - looks like "no". The new 8-core i7 is a bit faster in Geekbench than last year's 8-core i9, but only marginally. It does appear that Apple is being less conservative with cooling and pushing the processor hard, though, so some tests are showing more improvement than Geekbench would lead you to expect.


That's a caution flag for me then. I had a G5 before the transition to Intel. It was overclocked and died just a couple of months after my extended warranty ended. I had to migrate to an Intel Mac in the middle of scoring a movie. I don't want to ever go through that again!

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Tronam

wayne_rowley said:


> 10 core iMac: 1088 single core, 9264 multi core. Apparantly the fan does spin up under load. That is where the iMac Pro trumps it, more effective and quieter cooling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2020 iMac review: The last picture show
> 
> 
> This has got to be the end, right? Apple has announced that it’s moving the Mac to Apple-designed processors. The design of the iMac is stale and in desperate need of reinvention–just a…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sixcolors.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So performance at multicore is almost double that of my 6 core Mac Mini. But my Mini is silent 99% of the time. Decisions...


My 27” 2019 i9 iMac very rarely spins up its fans. Silent 99% of the time. Sure, if I were to run Cinebench over and over again with all threads pegged to 100% the fans will spin up, but I’ve only ever had them ramp up to full speed when I’m pushing the CPU and the GPU simultaneously, like in games at high resolutions.


----------



## Pinkman

The only reason the drive is difficult to replace on a Mini is because you have to disassemble and remove basically every single component to get access to it. The drive rests at the very base of the housing. I only know this because I have been through this process multiple times.


----------



## rnb_2

Pinkman said:


> The only reason the drive is difficult to replace on a Mini is because you have to disassemble and remove basically every single component to get access to it. The drive rests at the very base of the housing. I only know this because I have been through this process multiple times.



That was the previous generation - the 2018/2020 mini does not have an upgradeable drive, just chips on the logic board. You can see them at bottom right at https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/NdgXsdWjsCdeHFmG.huge (from iFixit's initial teardown).


----------



## yellow_lupine

I am very tempted to order a 10-core iMac but I am worried about the possible fan noise I could get from it.

Since the cooling system is essentially the same, is there somebody who own a 2019 i9 iMac that can tell me if that's particularly annoying?
I am currently using an i9 MacBook Pro and my main activity is running Cubase with Vienna Ensemble Pro and about 50 MIDI VST tracks. During recording, with buffer at 128, the fans always scream like crazy, even when not playing back the project :(


----------



## Nate Johnson

yellow_lupine said:


> I am very tempted to order a 10-core iMac but I am worried about the possible fan noise I could get from it.
> 
> Since the cooling system is essentially the same, is there somebody who own a 2019 i9 iMac that can tell me if that's particularly annoying?
> I am currently using an i9 MacBook Pro and my main activity is running Cubase with Vienna Ensemble Pro and about 50 MIDI VST tracks. During recording, with buffer at 128, the fans always scream like crazy, even when not playing back the project :(



I’d be careful comparing the 2019 i9 to this one - cooling might be the same, but the chip is different! (Some people are saying it runs hotter)


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

I’ve made up my mind ... now hopefully I can stay strong. I almost don’t dare to say it, but I’ll try to sing it out longer with my late i5 2013 iMac. Hopefully another year or two and then trying to switch to a powerful enough ARM machine. Damn ... I waited so long for this iMac update, but with the Apple Silicon on his way I don’t want to pull the trigger.

The fan of my current iMac makes a ticking noise now and then, but as long as it runs I can work with it. I have found multiple ways to compose whatever I want and push it out of this machine. Of course, a newer and faster one will probably make my life much easier ... but I can’t invest in something that my instinct screams not to do. I guess I will know in time if I made the right decision.


----------



## P3TAAL

It is a difficult choice with the new ones on the horizon. I need the ability to run windows easily for work which is why I'm buying now. Just in case there is an issue running windows on the new ones.


----------



## samtrino

I can see why the latest iMacs could be appealing to some, but if you don’t specifically need Intel CPUs and can hold on for few more months it just makes perfect sense to wait...

Of course, in the next few months Apple marketing will make it super hard to resist getting one of the best “Intel” Macs, but as you said “stay strong” and resist — everything we know so far about Apple Silicon and all the signs from Apple execs show that the best Macs (by far) are yet to come, and very soon...




gh0stwrit3r said:


> I’ve made up my mind ... now hopefully I can stay strong. I almost don’t dare to say it, but I’ll try to sing it out longer with my late i5 2013 iMac. Hopefully another year or two and then trying to switch to a powerful enough ARM machine. Damn ... I waited so long for this iMac update, but with the Apple Silicon on his way I don’t want to pull the trigger.
> 
> The fan of my current iMac makes a ticking noise now and then, but as long as it runs I can work with it. I have found multiple ways to compose whatever I want and push it out of this machine. Of course, a newer and faster one will probably make my life much easier ... but I can’t invest in something that my instinct screams not to do. I guess I will know in time if I made the right decision.


----------



## Geoff Grace

I'm not so sure. Experience tells me that this isn't a good time to buy for the long haul.

If it turns out that temperature is a valid concern with the latest Intel Macs, then they may not be built to last. (See my post on the previous page for my history of owning a G5 during the last transition.)

Also, the first ARM-based Macs may not be as future proof as those that will be released a few years down the road. I say this as a 2008 Mac Pro owner who wishes he could have waited at least until 2009 to buy into the Intel Mac platform. That one year made a big difference in terms of upgradabilty today.

If I had to buy now, I'd buy for the short-term, planning to upgrade again in roughly three years. For me, that would mean an Intel Mac. YMMV.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## rnb_2

P3TAAL said:


> It is a difficult choice with the new ones on the horizon. I need the ability to run windows easily for work which is why I'm buying now. Just in case there is an issue running windows on the new ones.



Wise choice, as there is absolutely going to be an issue running Windows on ARM Macs for the foreseeable future. Windows on ARM is still in its infancy, available only to select hardware manufacturers, so there's no way to even buy it, let alone figure out how to install it so that it will dual-boot on an ARM Mac.

Each person has to make their own choice for their reasons, of course, but I question continuing on with an older Mac for an application as hardware-dependent as composing with VIs. Yes, Apple Silicon Macs are likely to be great at launch and better every few months, but a true replacement for the 27-inch iMac may be 18 months out; the 21.5-inch models are likely to be replaced much sooner, likely with a 24-inch redesign, but I don't see a lot of people running the 21.5-inch on this forum (I kinda love the compromises of that machine, personally).

The thing to keep in mind with any workflow that makes heavy use of plugins - DAWs are a prime example, along with apps like Photoshop - is that, even if your main application makes the jump to Apple Silicon fairly quickly, in order to run native instead of emulated (with unpredictable effects on performance), *EVERY PLUGIN YOU USE* also has to be recompiled (best case) or rewritten (worst case) for Apple Silicon. If everything but your preferred woodwinds library (or reverb, etc) gets rewritten, you'll still have to run your whole setup emulating x64 on ARM to accommodate that one library. For VI, this means that Spitfire/SINE/Synchron/Play/Kontakt/UVI (I'm sure I'm missing some) will have to, at minimum, be recompiled for Apple Silicon, along with thousands and thousands of plugins. I'm not sure how much work will be involved in modifying individual libraries that use each player application - it might be minor, it might not. Then think of all the older libraries out there - Spitfire's Kontakt libraries, VSL's VI series, etc; will it be worth it to put work into converting those over, when there is already work involved in getting the current player app converted?

I'm as excited about the potential for Apple Silicon as anybody, and look forward to either a new Mac mini that doesn't need an eGPU to run my photo and video software, or a (hopefully) reasonably-priced 24" iMac, by the time Adobe gets everything ported to Apple Silicon sometime in 2021. At that point, my current i7 2018 Mac mini will replace my 2012 i5 21.5-inch iMac as my primary music machine. In my opinion, there are just too many possible break points to be looking at theoretical Apple Silicon Macs as a reason not to upgrade right now if you're a composer with an older Mac. This assumes you're in position to afford a computer purchase now or in the near-ish future, of course - keep soldiering on if what you have now is what you can afford, especially if this is a hobby.

However, someone else pointed out earlier something I hadn't realized: the i5 models are now MUCH better than they were, since the 10th-generation desktop i5 processors now (finally!) have hyperthreading. This makes even the i5 27" iMacs viable options - the base 3.1GHz config would depend on being able to fit your OS and applications in 256GB of storage, since that isn't configurable on that config, but other than that, it would be perfectly fine for VI use. It's probably similar to my i7 Mac mini (3.1/4.5GHz vs 3.2/4.6, but 10th-gen vs 8th), but with a better GPU, and easily upgradeable RAM. The next step up gets you twice the storage and a faster CPU.

The takeaway, though, is that I think *all* of the base 27" iMac configs are viable options for people on this forum. For heavy templates, the i7 or i9 would have some benefit, but all of them give you the easily upgradeable RAM that is possibly more important for composers.


----------



## Geoff Grace

For me, the one initial lure of next-gen, Apple Silicon Macs is the ability to run iOS apps natively on that platform. There are a lot of inexpensive (but not cheap) music apps from great companies like Moog, Korg, etc. that I'd like easier access to in my setup. That said, booting up an iOS soft synth will be one thing; but instantiating it in a DAW will be another.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## rnb_2

Geoff Grace said:


> For me, the one initial lure of next-gen, Apple Silicon Macs is the ability to run iOS apps natively on that platform. There are a lot of inexpensive (but not cheap) music apps from great companies like Moog, Korg, etc. that I'd like easier access to in my setup. That said, booting up an iOS soft synth will be one thing; but instantiating it in a DAW will be another.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geoff



Yeah, it's hard to predict exactly how that is going to work. A lot of companies put out low-cost music apps on iOS, and I'm not sure how interested they're going to be in getting their iOS apps to work in place of their more expensive existing Mac apps, especially given the sandboxed nature of iOS software.


----------



## Geoff Grace

It'll be interesting to watch it unfold. I understand that the default will be to have all iOS apps available in the Mac App store from day one and that developers will have to opt-out if they don't want their apps to appear.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## rnb_2

Geoff Grace said:


> It'll be interesting to watch it unfold. I understand that the default will be to have all iOS apps available in the Mac App store from day one and that developers will have to opt-out if they don't want their apps to appear.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geoff



Yeah, the iOS apps will be there unless they opt out, but I'm not sure how they will be integrated with "native" Mac apps, or if it will even be possible, at least at the beginning. So, you may be able to download Korg's iOS apps onto an ARM Mac, and I assume there will be a way to duplicate the connection options on iOS to connect to hardware, but integrating that into a Mac DAW? I just don't have any information on how that might work - I think we'll have to wait until late this year and see what happens.


----------



## Geoff Grace

Agreed.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## samtrino

All good points... in such a major transition, unless I really need a new machine right now, I’d rather wait few more months before jumping on a last gen product... that’s only my opinion of course.

Regarding iOS plugins, there is talk that AUv3 could be supported on Apple Silicon Macs, only speculation for now, but if true any DAW supporting the format would be able to load them up without problem.




Geoff Grace said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geoff


----------



## Tronam

I haven't even updated my 2019 iMac to Catalina yet, so I'm extremely cautious about this transition. As a tech geek I am excited about the potential of Apple silicon, but as a composer it's also a little terrifying. Until I can verify that every DAW, plugin and hardware dongle (eLicensor, iLok and UAD-2 satellite) is working I'll be steering very clear of these new systems. macOS has a terrific keyword/tagging systems and one thing I did in preparing for the death of 32-bit compatibility was to tag every single project file with all the plugins being used in them. It was a little time consuming, but very useful in rooting out old plugins that I could easily replace with newer ones or eliminate completely. It'll come in handy later on too for the switch. Thankfully many plugin developers, like Fabilter, have already ported their plugins to iOS/iPadOS so they'll have a big advantage at launch. I'm concerned about other companies though who have a track record of slowly dragging their feet, like Steinberg and Ableton. It'll be interesting to see.


----------



## wayne_rowley

I’ve decided to hold off for now. These new iMacs do look good, and I suspect they are powerhouses that should have at least 5 years of support and updates. However, my Mac Mini 2018 is no slouch either, and I’ve yet to really tax it in the music that I make. It’s whisper quiet nearly all of the time. While the multi-core performance of the 10 core would trounce my Mac Mini, the single core performance is not that much faster.

So I’m going to be sensible and hold off until I *need* to upgrade and look again when my machine can no longer easily handle what I ask from it. Depending on when I hit that point I might look again at these iMacs, or there might be viable AS Macs around to consider as well.

Wayne


----------



## elmrunner

Do you have any advice on which GPU to go for with the 2020 27" iMac?

Both the mid-tier model and the high-end model offer the option for the i9 10-core processor, but the difference is that the mid-tier model has a less powerful GPU (Radeon Pro 5300 with 4 GB) than the high-end model (Radeon Pro 5500 XT with 8 GB).

I intend to use the iMac only for music, and do want to connect a second display. I've read that some software is GPU-accelerated, but not sure if the GPU on the high-end model offers much of an advantage over the mid-tier GPU, or if that would be wasted money for my intended use?


----------



## Nate Johnson

wayne_rowley said:


> my Mac Mini 2018 is no slouch either, and I’ve yet to really tax it in the music that I make. It’s whisper quiet nearly all of the time.



Curious - what's your average session look like (track count/types)? And what are you running for a monitor(s)? I've always wanted the Mini to be an option for me, but have been leery of the negativity around the potential bottleneck of the integrated GPU and heat/fan noise issues.


----------



## wayne_rowley

tomorrowstops said:


> Curious - what's your average session look like (track count/types)? And what are you running for a monitor(s)? I've always wanted the Mini to be an option for me, but have been leery of the negativity around the potential bottleneck of the integrated GPU and heat/fan noise issues.



Hi. My larger sessions are currently based on SA BBC SO Core at around 130 tracks in Logic Pro X. I know the Spitfire plug-in is not a resource hog, but it barely breaks a sweat. I have 32GB of RAM which I might upgrade to 64 at some point.

When I have a bottleneck, it’s usually a single core spike, and the likely culprit is SA Solo Strings Performance or Legato patches in Kontakt. These are a resource hog, and I cannot play them in realtime with more than a single microphone enabled.

Edit: My Mini is also the 6 core i5 - NOT the i7 - which will give you an extra 20% at multi core. My Geekbench 5 scores though are a respectable 1088 single and 5300 multi core.

For monitor I have a Dell 34inch ultra-wide running at 2560x1080p. I have never experienced any lag or issues, but I’m aware that I’m not running at 4K+ or retina. But from what I’ve heard, issues with these can be mitigated with more RAM (many users with issues seem to have the stock 8GB) and/or by not running at scaled.

I’m tempted to try a 4K screen at some point, but my Dell is great. I find the ultrawide setup perfect in Logic for both the arrangement window and the mixer.

Wayne


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

wayne_rowley said:


> When I have a bottleneck, it’s usually a single core spike, and the likely culprit is SA Solo Strings Performance or Legato patches in Kontakt. These are a resource hog, and I cannot play them in realtime with more than a single microphone enabled.


I have similar experiences with my 2013 i5 iMac. The performance legato patches from SA eat up all the CPU resources. I can only use a couple of them in a composition. Most of the time I work around them.


----------



## rnb_2

wayne_rowley said:


> Hi. My larger sessions are currently based on SA BBC SO Core at around 130 tracks in Logic Pro X. I know the Spitfire plug-in is not a resource hog, but it barely breaks a sweat. I have 32GB of RAM which I might upgrade to 64 at some point.
> 
> When I have a bottleneck, it’s usually a single core spike, and the likely culprit is SA Solo Strings Performance or Legato patches in Kontakt. These are a resource hog, and I cannot play them in realtime with more than a single microphone enabled.
> 
> Edit: My Mini is also the 6 core i5 - NOT the i7 - which will give you an extra 20% at multi core. My Geekbench 5 scores though are a respectable 1088 single and 5300 multi core.
> 
> For monitor I have a Dell 34inch ultra-wide running at 2560x1080p. I have never experienced any lag or issues, but I’m aware that I’m not running at 4K+ or retina. But from what I’ve heard, issues with these can be mitigated with more RAM (many users with issues seem to have the stock 8GB) and/or by not running at scaled.
> 
> I’m tempted to try a 4K screen at some point, but my Dell is great. I find the ultrawide setup perfect in Logic for both the arrangement window and the mixer.
> 
> Wayne



I think waiting to upgrade is perfectly reasonable in your case - a 2018 mini is still pretty powerful, especially if you have enough RAM.

I honestly haven't done enough with my i7/16GB setup to know where it might stumble, but I do have the eGPU to eliminate RAM use for the integrated GPU and hopefully take care of any display bottleneck. Mine is connected to a BenQ 27" 4k display currently (running at a scaled 2560x1440), but if I do get a (theoretical) ARM mini next year, I would probably keep the BenQ for photo/video use and get a 34" ultra wide for my Intel mini when it becomes my music workstation. I think the benefits of the extended track visibility would outweigh having the crisper display of 4k/Retina, whereas the extra resolution is preferable for my photo work - video would also benefit from a wider screen, but then I'd be looking at the pricier, higher resolution ultrawides to handle 4k video properly.


----------



## Vik

rnb_2 said:


> Yeah, the iOS apps will be there unless they opt out, but I'm not sure how they will be integrated with "native" Mac apps, or if it will even be possible, at least at the beginning.


_If I understand this right_, there's no difference between apps that are native to ARM chips on ARM based Macs and iOs apps that are native to to ARM chips on iOs devices. In other words, maybe they couldn't opt out even if they wanted to – and why would they? .  There are already AU3 plugins on iOs, and since iOs and native Mac OS for ARM Macs essentially seems be the same thing except that the OS is more mature and similar to desktop operating systems on ARM Macs than they are at least on current iOs versions, there's probably nothing that needs to be done. What needs to be done, of course, is that normal Mac DAWs need to be ported to the new OS, and the same goes for plugins that are native to Intel based Macs (unless they already have iOs versions of them).

So, Apple's statements about iOs and MacOS never will be merged were right; they aren't merged. It's all iOs. The future Macs are all iOs devices (even if they don't call the new MacOS for iOs that), only that iOs has the function we only had in MacOS earlier, probably both on future Macs and future iOs devices.





__





Full Audio Unit (AU) Compatible App List (644)


Audio Unit (AU) compatible Strings iOS application list, 644 found




synthyfrog.com


----------



## storyteller

Vik said:


> _If I understand this right_, there's no difference between apps that are native to ARM chips on ARM based Macs and iOs apps that are native to to ARM chips on iOs devices. In other words, maybe they couldn't opt out even if they wanted to – and why would they? .  There are already AU3 plugins on iOs, and since iOs and native Mac OS for ARM Macs essentially seems be the same thing except that the OS is more mature and similar to desktop operating systems on ARM Macs than they are at least on current iOs versions, there's probably nothing that needs to be done. What needs to be done, of course, is that normal Mac DAWs need to be ported to the new OS, and the same goes for plugins that are native to Intel based Macs (unless they already have iOs versions of them).
> 
> So, Apple's statements about iOs and MacOS never will be merged were right; they aren't merged. It's all iOs. The future Macs are all iOs devices (even if they don't call the new MacOS for iOs that), only that iOs has the function we only had in MacOS earlier, probably both on future Macs and future iOs devices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full Audio Unit (AU) Compatible App List (644)
> 
> 
> Audio Unit (AU) compatible Strings iOS application list, 644 found
> 
> 
> 
> 
> synthyfrog.com


It is my understanding that this is incorrect. I have not messed around with the arm Dev kits, but iOS apps would still be dependent on OSX to run them... not the other way around. Because an iOS app runs on arm does not automatically make it possible to run on an arm Mac. The same goes for intel based apps on an intel based mobile device (if there were such a thing in the Mac lineup). Any OSX app should still run just fine on arm Macs as long as the translation program works for specialized instruction sets. These apps will not necessarily be as optimized Without modification, but they should still work regardless. But iOS apps will likely not need the same optimization changes for the codebase, but the GUI is where code changes would then need to be modified. IOS is built around a touch interface. The GUI is dependent on how specific touch devices are used. There are no native file menus, keyboard shortcuts, etc. So That is why OSX is being modified to handle the different development approaches. it will be on the developer to unify the codebase, but approach the GUI/Interface per specific platform. Still a lot of work either way...


----------



## Nate Johnson

wayne_rowley said:


> Hi. My larger sessions are currently based on SA BBC SO Core at around 130 tracks in Logic Pro X. I know the Spitfire plug-in is not a resource hog, but it barely breaks a sweat. I have 32GB of RAM which I might upgrade to 64 at some point.
> 
> When I have a bottleneck, it’s usually a single core spike, and the likely culprit is SA Solo Strings Performance or Legato patches in Kontakt. These are a resource hog, and I cannot play them in realtime with more than a single microphone enabled.
> 
> Edit: My Mini is also the 6 core i5 - NOT the i7 - which will give you an extra 20% at multi core. My Geekbench 5 scores though are a respectable 1088 single and 5300 multi core.
> 
> For monitor I have a Dell 34inch ultra-wide running at 2560x1080p. I have never experienced any lag or issues, but I’m aware that I’m not running at 4K+ or retina. But from what I’ve heard, issues with these can be mitigated with more RAM (many users with issues seem to have the stock 8GB) and/or by not running at scaled.
> 
> I’m tempted to try a 4K screen at some point, but my Dell is great. I find the ultrawide setup perfect in Logic for both the arrangement window and the mixer.
> 
> Wayne



Thank you for the real-world views. Impressed by that track count for sure. I mostly use low-cpu demanding stuff, but I also have things like SA Solo Strings. Like you said, its a resource hog, but thankfully I don’t reach for them often. 

My current external monitor is a crappy 32” Vizio Tv. Its not terrible I guess, but running along side the retina display on my MBP, its pixel-y-ness becomes painfully obvious. One of the big reasons I had been shooting for with the iMac was having the big 5k screen. Although one of the cons was downsizing to 27” from 32” - ha!


----------



## P3TAAL

elmrunner said:


> Do you have any advice on which GPU to go for with the 2020 27" iMac?
> 
> Both the mid-tier model and the high-end model offer the option for the i9 10-core processor, but the difference is that the mid-tier model has a less powerful GPU (Radeon Pro 5300 with 4 GB) than the high-end model (Radeon Pro 5500 XT with 8 GB).
> 
> I intend to use the iMac only for music, and do want to connect a second display. I've read that some software is GPU-accelerated, but not sure if the GPU on the high-end model offers much of an advantage over the mid-tier GPU, or if that would be wasted money for my intended use?



I can't really answer your question but i went for the mid tier model 10 core 19 to save a few hundred. 
I too only really use it for Logic & Work stuff via windows. Maybe a little video work on rare occasions.

The way i look at it is i never had an issue with the graphics capabilities of my 2014 iMac and this 2020 5300 GPU must be a lot better than that so i'm hoping it won't be an issue. I get your concern though. The last thing you want is to get a machine and then wish you had bought a slightly more powerful one.


----------



## Nate Johnson

Anyone know if these new iMacs can be rolled back to Mojave? Or is it just the new Mac Pro that couldn't do that?

Although I still don't know what to make of Catalina - I've been leery to move to it, given all the reports of discomfort, but maybe a lot of that has past. Seems like a few of you use it successfully anyways.


----------



## wayne_rowley

tomorrowstops said:


> Anyone know if these new iMacs can be rolled back to Mojave? Or is it just the new Mac Pro that couldn't do that?
> 
> Although I still don't know what to make of Catalina - I've been leery to move to it, given all the reports of discomfort, but maybe a lot of that has past. Seems like a few of you use it successfully anyways.



I‘ve been on Catalina for a while. Currently running 10.15.6. No issues, and it solved a kernel crash introduced by a Mojave security update.

Of course that’s based on my mileage/software/setup. Others may vary.

Wayne


----------



## P3TAAL

I've been on Catalina for about 5 months, I did have to upgrade a few plugins which was easy enough. I have quite a few plugins and the only one I cannot load at the moment is Kush TWK plugin.


----------



## elmrunner

P3TAAL said:


> The way i look at it is i never had an issue with the graphics capabilities of my 2014 iMac and this 2020 5300 GPU must be a lot better than that so i'm hoping it won't be an issue. I get your concern though. The last thing you want is to get a machine and then wish you had bought a slightly more powerful one.



Thanks, I appreciate the advice! I'm thinking the same, currently I'm on a rather limited rig (2015 Macbook Air), so it can only get better even with the smaller 5300 GPU  But on the other hand, if I'm already investing that much, I might just add the extra 200$, if only for future proofing. Except of course if it's the case that the stronger GPU would bring zero benefit for music uses, then I would rather invest that amount in more instruments


----------



## P3TAAL

elmrunner said:


> Thanks, I appreciate the advice! I'm thinking the same, currently I'm on a rather limited rig (2015 Macbook Air), so it can only get better even with the smaller 5300 GPU  But on the other hand, if I'm already investing that much, I might just add the extra 200$, if only for future proofing. Except of course if it's the case that the stronger GPU would bring zero benefit for music uses, then I would rather invest that amount in more instruments



Yes totally get it if your spending that much why not go all out. I was thinking the same thing. Even though I could have spent the extra I just felt uncomfortable as it crept towards the £3000 mark. Also I will be getting 32gigs of ram which will be another £120 as well as an adapter for the USB-C ports. I did upgrade to the trackpad though. Always wanted to try one of those.


----------



## Geoff Grace

I love my Magic Trackpad. I've been using it for years. Not only does my wrist feel much better, the multitouch gestures feel more intuitive to me. I have no urge whatsoever to go back to a mouse.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## P3TAAL

Geoff Grace said:


> I love my Magic Trackpad. Not only does my wrist feel much better, the multitouch gestures feel more intuitive to me. I have no urge whatsoever to go back to a mouse.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geoff



Good to know,
Amongst other things I'm thinking it might be better for drawing in smoother automation!


----------



## elmrunner

Geoff Grace said:


> I love my Magic Trackpad. I've been using it for years. Not only does my wrist feel much better, the multitouch gestures feel more intuitive to me. I have no urge whatsoever to go back to a mouse.



The magic trackpad is great. I use both the trackpad and mouse, the trackpad for navigating around the project with my left, and the mouse for most of the clicking with my right. If I play the piano with both hands, I might as well use both of them in the DAW


----------



## rnb_2

tomorrowstops said:


> Anyone know if these new iMacs can be rolled back to Mojave? Or is it just the new Mac Pro that couldn't do that?
> 
> Although I still don't know what to make of Catalina - I've been leery to move to it, given all the reports of discomfort, but maybe a lot of that has past. Seems like a few of you use it successfully anyways.



Almost certainly not - Macs typically can't be rolled back to an OS version from before they were released, and often come with custom builds that include new drivers that aren't yet in the current general release. Those drivers then usually get rolled into the next point release of the OS.

I have Catalina on my Mac mini and Mojave on my 2012 iMac, and I don't seem to have any more difficulty with Catalina than Mojave (did run into some issues with an un-signed 5-year-old plugin demo yesterday, but it eventually sorted itself).


----------



## rnb_2

elmrunner said:


> The magic trackpad is great. I use both the trackpad and mouse, the trackpad for navigating around the project with my left, and the mouse for most of the clicking with my right. If I play the piano with both hands, I might as well use both of them in the DAW



I've been using Wacom tablets for decades, but I added the trackpad as soon as Apple introduced the original Magic Trackpad several years ago to use for gestures. I've gradually gotten better and better at using it with my left hand, to the point where I switch back and forth pretty fluidly - I find it easier to do some things with the trackpad than the Wacom pen. On my second computer, I combine a trackpad on the left with a Logitech trackball on the right, and some things are much easier with the trackpad and my left hand than with my thumb on my right hand.


----------



## emilio_n

Someone here bought finally a new iMac 2020? Still on the fence to get one i9 and update to 128gb later... Having an old iMac 2015 I don't know if I can wait until Arm pass the current model...


----------



## edhamilton

10core vs 8core test. Video just out today.


----------



## wayne_rowley

Useful. The 8 core i7 looks to be the sweet spot for most users I suspect. The 10 core will eek out a bit more raw performance, but no more than 10%.

There are still plenty of geekbench scores which are lower than these out there. A number of others have questioned this variability. 

Still a decent machine though - the last and best of the Intel iMac line!


----------



## Rex282

I’d like to see an overview of which specs benefit a VI rig and have it rated from that view.


----------



## P3TAAL

Rex282 said:


> I’d like to see an overview of which specs benefit a VI rig and have it rated from that view.



I'd like to know this as well. I've ordered the i9 10 core but after watching that video wonder if i could have saved a bit of money and gone for the i7.


----------



## Mike Marino

Article on thermal throttling testing:








Putting the 27-inch i9 iMac thermal performance to the test


The recently refreshed 27-inch iMac offers a lot of power and capability for the price, in the same chassis that it has used for years. How does the new model's thermal performance under load stack up?



appleinsider.com


----------



## Begfred

I have ordered the i9 as well. But this french Mac site revealed a Logic Pro test and the 2020 i9 have loaded 20 less tracks ([email protected]) than the 2020 i7. Even the 16'' MBP have done better.
Hope that's not true.


----------



## P3TAAL

Begfred said:


> I have ordered the i9 as well. But this french Mac site revealed a Logic Pro test and the 2020 i9 have loaded 20 less tracks ([email protected]) than the 2020 i7. Even the 16'' MBP have done better.
> Hope that's not true.


I can't see myself ever using 100 tracks but that is a bit disappointing the i7 performed better than the i9. I wonder what the results would be for cpu intensive fx though.


----------



## SteveK

These and other results are making the decision between i7 and i9 really tough. Will more cores help allow more Omnisphere tracks plus plenty of VI tracks? More real world application results would be really helpful.
I can’t see me getting beyond 50-100 tracks that often but I’m new to orchestral libraries and mock ups so I’m not sure...


----------



## jobinho

Max Tech ran a logic benchmark on the i7 which hit 125 tracks. This same test on an i9 hit 131, both with 64 GB RAM. So the gain is very marginal for audio.


----------



## rnb_2

I hope you feel better after getting that off your chest. Do what you have to do, of course, but you didn't say anything that hasn't been said a thousand times about Apple over the years, but they're still somehow the biggest company in the world. Could they use some humility? Yes, I'll agree with you there, but only (for now) in the area of how they deal with developers.

It's your final point where you go completely off the rails. I'd argue that, stuck with the same underperforming Intel CPUs as the rest of the industry for the last few years, Apple has had one hand tied behind its back in trying to show extra value vs the commodity PC industry. They've still done reasonably well in spite of that (laptop keyboards excepted, until very recently), but with the switch to Apple Silicon, I expect we'll see a truly unleashed Mac over the next few years.

The transition will no doubt have a few bumps, and it may be a while before an Apple Silicon Mac is the best option for the majority on VI-C, but for general use (or any market where the software is converted quickly), I expect that the upcoming Macs will be the best personal computers on the market, and it won't be very close. Apple's CPUs are already in the ballpark of x86 processors while running at lower clock speeds in space/heat/battery-constrained phones and tablets. Modified for desktop and laptop use (along with another year of development), they have nothing but headroom to decide where they want to fall on the speed/heat/power balance for each device. Personally, I can't wait to see what they do.

For the people on VI-C, these new iMacs are actually a pretty fantastic value - better than any iMac since the original 2014 5k - and may be the best bang-for-the-buck options for anyone who needs broad software compatibility for the next few years. If you can build a PC that works better for your needs, by all means, do it, but I honestly don't see this as the time to abandon the Mac, let alone the iPhone - many high-end phones are expensive, and nobody's forcing you to buy the Pro - or iPad, which has literally never had a serious competitor in the decade it's existed.


----------



## JohnG

I'm still using a souped-up 2009 Mac and can't wait to upgrade. Just not sure when, as I am using all this legacy hardware for which I'd need substitutes.

Still, I agree with @rnb_2 's general point: Apple makes incredibly good machines / tablets / phones. I use PCs too, for mundane tasks like playing back samples, but for my "main" activities, Apple has been spectacular value, considering how long they last _and_ remain high-performing.


----------



## rnb_2

JohnG said:


> Still, I agree with @rnb_2 's general point: Apple makes incredibly good machines / tablets / phones. I use PCs too, for mundane tasks like playing back samples, but for my "main" activities, Apple has been spectacular value, considering how long they last _and_ remain high-performing.
> 
> Besides, I bought some of their stock, so I can afford a new one!



It will be interesting to see how the software industry responds to what could be a major jump in performance on the Mac over the next few years. My main computer is a 2018 Mac mini, but my main music machine is a 2012 21.5" iMac, and I'd argue that one of the big reasons that old Macs are still viable is because the x86 CPU makers hit a wall in single-core performance a few years ago, and have made very few gains since. Yes, they're adding more cores, but writing software that efficiently takes advantage of many cores can be tricky, especially when working with legacy code - Adobe is still working on making Photoshop do it well past a few cores - so there are a lot of markets where software hasn't had a major per-core performance jump to work with in a very long time. So, any Mac with a non-integrated GPU and at least four cores (to give headroom for juggling OS and user processes) is still a very useable machine for a lot of tasks, regardless of age.


----------



## ptram

rnb_2 said:


> Adobe is still working on making Photoshop do it well past a few cores


Not examined the cores at work, but Affinity seems to be doing great with the available resources. At least, the UI is incredibly fast. Since they have great app on the iPad, maybe they are ready with the shared code in the forthcoming Macs.

Paolo


----------



## rnb_2

ptram said:


> Not examined the cores at work, but Affinity seems to be doing great with the available resources. At least, the UI is incredibly fast. Since they have great app on the iPad, maybe they are ready with the shared code in the forthcoming Macs.
> 
> Paolo



I'm sure Affinity is doing a good job, and I expect they will be releasing for Apple Silicon very quickly (it will be an interesting race between them and the Pixelmator crew). They did well moving from exclusively Apple to cross-platform without losing what made their Mac apps great. I'd use them more if I wasn't wedded to Adobe - for $10 a month I get my web hosting + Photoshop + Lightroom Classic + mobile apps. I don't love them, but they get the job done.


----------



## bradbecker

For anyone interested, I did buy the highest baseline new iMac and then buy 64 GB of RAM from OWC and am loving the results so far. My 2014 iMac with 32GB RAM had been choking on my current Logic project but the new system is running it w/o a hitch. Haven’t seen how many tracks/VI/plugins I can load yet but it’s clearly a big jump up.


----------



## emilio_n

bradbecker said:


> For anyone interested, I did buy the highest baseline new iMac and then buy 64 GB of RAM from OWC and am loving the results so far. My 2014 iMac with 32GB RAM had been choking on my current Logic project but the new system is running it w/o a hitch. Haven’t seen how many tracks/VI/plugins I can load yet but it’s clearly a big jump up.


Did you get the i7 8 cores or the i9 10 cores? I am not sure if the 400$ more in the upgrade to i9 worth it.


----------



## P3TAAL

bradbecker said:


> For anyone interested, I did buy the highest baseline new iMac and then buy 64 GB of RAM from OWC and am loving the results so far. My 2014 iMac with 32GB RAM had been choking on my current Logic project but the new system is running it w/o a hitch. Haven’t seen how many tracks/VI/plugins I can load yet but it’s clearly a big jump up.


Same here. Came from a 2014 imac. I also got the top tier i9 but with the 5300 gpu. Working great and for anyone interested not heard the fans at all yet, but only had it a couple of weeks.


----------



## jobinho

P3TAAL said:


> Same here. Came from a 2014 imac. I also got the top tier i9 but with the 5300 gpu. Working great and for anyone interested not heard the fans at all yet, but only had it a couple of weeks.



I don't suppose you're running Ableton? Just interested in what kind of track count is attainable in the i9


----------



## P3TAAL

N


jobinho said:


> I don't suppose you're running Ableton? Just interested in what kind of track count is attainable in the i9


No I'm on logic. The song I'm working on at the moment has about 50 tracks,ish. It was stuttering on my old machine with CPU meter right at the top. CPU meter is quite near the bottom with this machine. I can't see me ever really getting up near the hundreds for track count but I do use quite a few cpu intensive plugins like omnisphere and some of the more taxing plugin alliance stuff among other things


----------



## bradbecker

emilio_n said:


> Did you get the i7 8 cores or the i9 10 cores? I am not sure if the 400$ more in the upgrade to i9 worth it.



3.8 8-core i7
Radeon Pro 5500 XT

My 2015 iMac was choking on projects that this computer isn't even thinking about. I have not tested the upper bounds of capacity yet but I think I'll get there soon with my current project.


----------



## Michael Antrum

bradbecker said:


> 3.8 8-core i7
> Radeon Pro 5500 XT
> 
> My 2015 iMac was choking on projects that this computer isn't even thinking about. I have not tested the upper bounds of capacity yet but I think I'll get there soon with my current project.



I have a 2015 i7 with 48gb RAM. Please do not post valuable and useful information like this as it is not helpful to my attempt to wait until the new silicon is released....


----------



## SGordB

Michael Antrum said:


> I have a 2015 i7 with 48gb RAM. Please do not post valuable and useful information like this as it is not helpful to my attempt to wait until the new silicon is released....



Ha ha  Bradbecker's post also threatened my resolve to keep waiting for the great AS unveil. I'm not sure how many people realize how likely it is the AS Macs will run circles around their Intel predecessors from the get-go. What's captured my imagination is the hare-like rate of Apple's A-series chip development compared to Intel's tortoise-like pace over the past ~10 years. Using Geekbench stats, Apple has been increasing single-core performance by nearly 50% per year since 2011 in its mobile devices. In contrast, Intel Macs have been creeping up by well below 10% per year. This is why -- at least judging by single core performance alone (the most critical bottleneck for me, I believe) -- were I to replace my snap, crackle and popping late-2014 quad-core i7 iMac (that year's flagship) with the fastest of the current iMac generation, I could only expect a ~25-30% improvement in single-core performance. In contrast, if I owned the fastest late-2014 iPhone or iPad, which used the A8X chip, upgrading to last fall's cutting edge A13 bionic would give me nearly _quadruple_ the SC performance. It will probably be 5X when the A14 devices come out in a few weeks, and that chip likely will power the first AS Macs, and judging by the rumours, starting with 8 "big" cores in a MacBook.


----------



## emilio_n

Michael Antrum said:


> I have a 2015 i7 with 48gb RAM. Please do not post valuable and useful information like this as it is not helpful to my attempt to wait until the new silicon is released....


Exactly with the same machine but with 32gb. Is working, more or less but I think I will upgrade to the iMac 2020. My main reasons are that I am sure that I can upgrade to 128Gb to a reasonable price (Not sure if will be the same with the Apple Silicom models) and that I can use Bootcamp to play a couple of games that I like. I am checking Luna display to use my current iMac as the second screen when I get the new one. I know Luna don't support retina resolutions on the second monitor but I think this is not so important.
I will wait until next week, in any case, to check what Apple will present on their event.


----------



## Nate Johnson

SGordB said:


> I'm not sure how many people realize how likely it is the AS Macs will run circles around their Intel predecessors from the get-go.



This is why I get up in the morning. hahah ok, not really. But if this plays out like you're saying, that would truly be game-changing. Something Apple hasn't done in quite some time now. I'm still trying to justify waiting to buy a new Mac until these new ones come along!


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

I could not resist anymore. I told myself not to do it. But then again I started watching reviews and so ... damn, this machine is so good! And we know that this model works. So eventually I was lost and pushed the buy button.

I bought the iMac 2020 with an i7 chip and the 5500XT graphics. Upgraded the RAM to 64GB with OWC. It's a fraction of the budget that I had in mind ... at least that's one of my excuses !lol! 

Cause:

I didn't opt-in for the i9 (I think it's an unnecessary overkill)
I didn't upgrade the GPU to the most expensive card (the tests/reviews show that I don't get huge advantages with the upgrade for the work I'm doing)
I didn't buy 128GB of RAM (I can upgrade later)
I start to love the default included mouse (it impressed me to be honest)
I adapt to the small keyboard (it looks nice)

And today I tested my orchestral template - that I never could build and use on my old i5 iMac out of 2013. All the instruments are in it. More than 100 tracks. Routings to busses with Reverb and FX. And it works like a charm!

I never have been so happy with a new computer! I'll be fine for the upcoming years


----------



## jtnyc

gh0stwrit3r said:


> I could not resist anymore. I told myself not to do it. But then again I started watching reviews and so ... damn, this machine is so good! And we know that this model works. So eventually I was lost and pushed the buy button.
> 
> I bought the iMac 2020 with an i7 chip and the 5500XT graphics. Upgraded the RAM to 64GB with OWC. It's a fraction of the budget that I had in mind ... at least that's one of my excuses !lol!
> 
> Cause:
> 
> I didn't opt-in for the i9 (I think it's an unnecessary overkill)
> I didn't upgrade the GPU to the most expensive card (the tests/reviews show that I don't get huge advantages with the upgrade for the work I'm doing)
> I didn't buy 128GB of RAM (I can upgrade later)
> I start to love the default included mouse (it impressed me to be honest)
> I adapt to the small keyboard (it looks nice)
> 
> And today I tested my orchestral template - that I never could build and use on my old i5 iMac out of 2013. All the instruments are in it. More than 100 tracks. Routings to busses with Reverb and FX. And it works like a charm!
> 
> I never have been so happy with a new computer! I'll be fine for the upcoming years



Great news! Congratulations -

I'm looking at buying the same exact machine. Can you comment on any noise issues/fan throttling when running large projects? Where are you setting your buffer? Do those large projects hit your cpu with any significant impact. 

Any info appreciated -

Thanks


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

jtnyc said:


> Great news! Congratulations -
> 
> I'm looking at buying the same exact machine. Can you comment on any noise issues/fan throttling when running large projects? Where are you setting your buffer? Do those large projects hit your cpu with any significant impact.
> 
> Any info appreciated -
> 
> Thanks


I got the fans spin up once when rendering a FCPX project of 15 minutes with lots of effects. But that was a subtle and short raise of the fan speed.

My buffer in LPX is on 128 (did not experiment with other settings yet to be honest), 48KHz Sample Rate. My template includes 199 tracks now. With over more than 100 instruments/vst's like Spitfire Audio Symphonic Woodwinds, Brass, Strings, Spitfire Audio Percussion, Chamber strings.

I have multiple mics activated on the strings and brass.
I use on each track Fabfilter Pro Q for EQ.
Reverb is done with sends from busses.
I also got PRINT STEMS tracks.

On my old iMac 2013 an orchestral project with 40 tracks resulted in freezes and snowballs.
With this new iMac I don't even hit the 25% CPU usage with those projects.

It just works like a charm


----------



## jtnyc

gh0stwrit3r said:


> I got the fans spin up once when rendering a FCPX project of 15 minutes with lots of effects. But that was a subtle and short raise of the fan speed.
> 
> My buffer in LPX is on 128 (did not experiment with other settings yet to be honest), 48KHz Sample Rate. My template includes 199 tracks now. With over more than 100 instruments/vst's like Spitfire Audio Symphonic Woodwinds, Brass, Strings, Spitfire Audio Percussion, Chamber strings.
> 
> I have multiple mics activated on the strings and brass.
> I use on each track Fabfilter Pro Q for EQ.
> Reverb is done with sends from busses.
> I also got PRINT STEMS tracks.
> 
> On my old iMac 2013 an orchestral project with 40 tracks resulted in freezes and snowballs.
> With this new iMac I don't even hit the 25% CPU usage with those projects.
> 
> It just works like a charm



Sweet!


----------



## Nate Johnson

gh0stwrit3r said:


> I got the fans spin up once when rendering a FCPX project of 15 minutes with lots of effects. But that was a subtle and short raise of the fan speed.
> 
> My buffer in LPX is on 128 (did not experiment with other settings yet to be honest), 48KHz Sample Rate. My template includes 199 tracks now. With over more than 100 instruments/vst's like Spitfire Audio Symphonic Woodwinds, Brass, Strings, Spitfire Audio Percussion, Chamber strings.
> 
> I have multiple mics activated on the strings and brass.
> I use on each track Fabfilter Pro Q for EQ.
> Reverb is done with sends from busses.
> I also got PRINT STEMS tracks.
> 
> On my old iMac 2013 an orchestral project with 40 tracks resulted in freezes and snowballs.
> With this new iMac I don't even hit the 25% CPU usage with those projects.
> 
> It just works like a charm


 
arrrrgggghhhh why do you tempt me soooo?!?!


----------



## SvenE

gh0stwrit3r said:


> I could not resist anymore. I told myself not to do it. But then again I started watching reviews and so ... damn, this machine is so good! And we know that this model works. So eventually I was lost and pushed the buy button.
> 
> I bought the iMac 2020 with an i7 chip and the 5500XT graphics. Upgraded the RAM to 64GB with OWC. It's a fraction of the budget that I had in mind ... at least that's one of my excuses !lol!
> 
> Cause:
> 
> I didn't opt-in for the i9 (I think it's an unnecessary overkill)
> I didn't upgrade the GPU to the most expensive card (the tests/reviews show that I don't get huge advantages with the upgrade for the work I'm doing)
> I didn't buy 128GB of RAM (I can upgrade later)
> I start to love the default included mouse (it impressed me to be honest)
> I adapt to the small keyboard (it looks nice)
> 
> And today I tested my orchestral template - that I never could build and use on my old i5 iMac out of 2013. All the instruments are in it. More than 100 tracks. Routings to busses with Reverb and FX. And it works like a charm!
> 
> I never have been so happy with a new computer! I'll be fine for the upcoming years


I am planning to order mine next week (same configuration). I am leaning to the 2tb internal SSD plus external SSD's. Which internal SSD size did you choose for your IMac?


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

SvenE said:


> I am planning to order mine next week (same configuration). I am leaning to the 2tb hdd plus external SSD's. Which hdd size did you choose for your IMac?


Just the 512GB. That’s more than enough for me. I have all my projects and libraries installed on external SSD’s.


----------



## wayne_rowley

Very tempted to cave myself. The reviews of the 8 core suggest it would be a powerhouse for years to come. Plus it might be a year or more before the equivalent AS iMac comes out. Not to mention waiting to see if and when software and hardware vendors bring out compatibility. Could be waiting a while for UA to bring out Arrow drivers, assuming the hardware is even compatible...

At least that’s what I keep telling myself!


----------



## SteveK

I think you’ve convinced me that the 8 core i7 is sufficient. I’m still a bit confused about hard drive options though. I was going to get the 2TB internal SSD to give me plenty of room for my current and lots of future libraries but you and others have external SSDs. Why is that better please and is it a significant improvement? Could I just use Samsung T5 or T7 drives?

thanks
steve


----------



## BassClef

Steve... external SSDs are not "better" than Apples internal SSDs. In fact most of them are SATA drives compared to Apples internal NVMe drives, and are considerably slower. Most people will opt for those to save money. However, most users of DAWs and virtual instruments claim that the faster NVMe drives are not a huge improvement over their SATA drives for that specific purpose. The internal NVMe drives are a huge advantage in other workflow areas, such as video production.


----------



## P3TAAL

One of my reasons for using external drives is for peace of mind really, Just in case anything happens to my computer all my samples are still safe and sound stored externally, Also for cost reasons as getting a large apple SSD can be quite expensive


----------



## jtnyc

SteveK said:


> I think you’ve convinced me that the 8 core i7 is sufficient. I’m still a bit confused about hard drive options though. I was going to get the 2TB internal SSD to give me plenty of room for my current and lots of future libraries but you and others have external SSDs. Why is that better please and is it a significant improvement? Could I just use Samsung T5 or T7 drives?
> 
> thanks
> steve


The issue of which drive is faster or better is one thing, but the main thing here is, you don't want to stream your samples off of your system drive, nor do you want your project files on your system drive. So, DAW lives on system drive (of coarse), projects made with DAW live on it's own drive, and samples for VI's live on it's own drive.


----------



## SteveK

@jtnyc so there is a performance improvement by having the samples on separate SSDs then? Ie the samples will load or stream faster if they are not on the main internal drive presumably because there is a priority for the DAW and other operating activities.

For simplicity I’d rather have it all on the internal drive but if the better approach for performance is separate SSDs I’ll perhaps go for the smaller internal SSD and assume I’ll need at least one or in the end two Samsung SSD.

Sorry for the lack of understanding on this and thanks so much for the help.

Steve


----------



## P3TAAL

i have everything on one SSD on my 2012 MacBook pro and to be honest i don't see any issues really.


----------



## rnb_2

There are a few reasons to do things the way people have been doing them for years: head off any conflict between OS tasks and DAW/Sample tasks, keep samples relatively portable in case of computer failure, easier-to-understand organization, saving money, etc.

This practice started when everyone was using spinning hard disks, so it was mostly a performance optimization. As SSDs have become more commonplace, the other benefits have become more central, and with fast NVMe SSDs, it's very unlikely that it's necessary to separate samples from the OS drive for performance reasons. If you can afford the 2TB drive and are confident that you won't need more in the foreseeable future, you should be fine. However, the day you need more than 2TB and have to start thinking about splitting your library (an organizational headache) or migrating everything to an external (lots of work) - and thus leaving that expensive 2TB internal largely empty - you might question the choice.


----------



## PeterBaumann

rnb_2 said:


> Keep samples relatively portable in case of computer failure



This is one of the main reasons I keep nearly everything off my internal drive. My iMac only has a 256GB internal SSD. Originally I did this simply because it was often described as best practice for avoiding bottlenecks but ever since getting Apple devices with soldered components, I just couldn't risk having to send in the machine for repair and not being able to pick up straight away on another device, or potentially having to wipe the internal drive as part of a repair. 

Fortunately in the 6 years of having my iMac it's never needed to go in for repair, but over the years my MBPs have been in multiple times for heating/keyboard issues. I think I'm on my third one in 4 years or so - one of the laptops spent more time in repair than it did on my desk being used!

If something goes wrong with the newer Apple devices, it's a lot harder for us to access the internals than it used to be (on my MBP 2018, I'm not even sure where I'd start with trying to take it apart!).


----------



## krankyone

I thought a long time about internal vs external drives. This new system contradicts a lot of my old philosophies. The internal drive on the internal bus on my 2020 iMac is so fast that there really is no bottleneck. I'm getting an average of 3000 MB read/write speeds. That's 3000 Mega Bytes, not Mbits. You are not going to get that with external drives, even over Thunderbolt. I bought a cheap external 8 TB SSD for backups, just in case.

Right now on Geekbench browser, the fastest single core Mac performance is the 10 core iMac. Faster than iMac Pros and Mac Pros costing much more money. I like having the fastest Mac, if even for a little while. I love this machine! It screams, but silently.


----------



## krankyone

To put the fan noise into perspective, under normal load running Ableton Live, it's basically silent. I have to put my ear right next to the vent and strain to hear it. Running Cinebench stress test, you definitely can hear the fan maxing out, but even then it's not very loud. I'd say slightly more loud than my 2010 Mac Pro with 4 internal SSDs running at normal load. Push the Mac Pro with Cinebench and it's so loud it's a little frightening, like it's going to explode. The iMac is not like that at all. It's a great music machine


----------



## SteveK

Thanks @krankyone. 

But you now have me thinking maybe I should go full on with the 10 core i7 although the gain over the 8 core seem small.

You can upgrade the i5 to i7 10 core spec and have 2TB SSD for £3,099.

i7 8 core and 2 TB is £2,899.

I will inc the RAM to 72GB with some third party for c £300.

so £200 for 2 more cores! Worth it?

thanks
Steve


----------



## Patrick.K

My IMac 27 I5 mid 2011 32 GB with three external HDD LaCie in Firewire 800, it was a birthday présent,sure i would have preferred an I7 at the time, but it was a nice gift, and it works really well,it's not a war machine, but it does the job. but fear that it breaks down! ... So I also ask myself the question for a new IMac ?.
I have no problem with large templates of 80 midi tracks, but I have to purge each instance of Kontakt one by one, so that only the useful notes are played.
Of course, the I5 has problems handling many tracks simultaneously, but it's rare that all the instruments in the orchestra play at the same time!
The only solution is to bounce in place, a maximum of tracks, the audio tracks being less computationally intensive for the processor.
But hey, almost 10 years for this IMac ... or so I was lucky?, But I would like to change for more peace of mind.


----------



## Patrick.K

I forgot to say ...Why Apple does not design a thicker IMac for better cooling, a story of always thinner fashion?. A thick machine does not bother me on the contrary, it reassures me, and if they had the good idea to design a rear face easily removable, to be able to remove dust ... it would be so much better! Why complicate things, I have trouble understanding?


----------



## Mike Marino

SteveK said:


> But you now have me thinking maybe I should go full on with the 10 core i7 although the gain over the 8 core seem small.


This really is the question, isn't it? I haven't seen the Mac Geekbench site update with the 10-core machine yet (unless I've missed it).


----------



## P3TAAL

SteveK said:


> Thanks @krankyone.
> 
> But you now have me thinking maybe I should go full on with the 10 core i7 although the gain over the 8 core seem small.
> 
> You can upgrade the i5 to i7 10 core spec and have 2TB SSD for £3,099.
> 
> i7 8 core and 2 TB is £2,899.
> 
> I will inc the RAM to 72GB with some third party for c £300.
> 
> so £200 for 2 more cores! Worth it?
> 
> thanks
> Steve



you mean i9 10 core don't you?


----------



## SteveK

Sorry you are correct I mean the i9 10 core yes.

At a difference of £200 it would seem to make sense to get the fastest/higher core model as I don’t intend to change again for a long time as I am an accountant not a professional composer and making music as a hobby.


----------



## dcoscina

I wish these i9s were around in 2018 when I had to shop for a new computer. At the time it was between a quad i7 iMac or MP 6,1 and after asking several pros, I went with the latter. Oh well...


----------



## rnb_2

Mike Marino said:


> This really is the question, isn't it? I haven't seen the Mac Geekbench site update with the 10-core machine yet (unless I've missed it).



The 2020 iMacs are all up on Geekbench: 

i5 6c 3.1 5838
i5 6c 3.3 5997
i7 8c 3.8 7973
i9 10c 3.6 9070

The i9 and i7 finally dethroned the 13" MBP on the single-core chart, knocking it down to a close third (1252/1247/1242). Really disappointing (lack of) gains in single-core performance, honestly, and just more evidence for why Apple is ditching Intel. Intel claims that the next chip series will see big gains, but the damage has already been done.

If you need a new Mac now and/or depend on plugins or libraries that might take a while to move to Apple Silicon, the new iMacs are great machines, but very much the last gasp of What Was, ahead of the first glimpses of What Will Be.


----------



## Mike Marino

rnb_2 said:


> The 2020 iMacs are all up on Geekbench


Ah, I see them now. Thanks!


----------



## Fox

SteveK said:


> Sorry you are correct I mean the i9 10 core yes.
> 
> At a difference of £200 it would seem to make sense to get the fastest/higher core model as I don’t intend to change again for a long time as I am an accountant not a professional composer and making music as a hobby.


Except the i9 runs hotter, right, and thus is more likely to have issues with heat throttling.


----------



## SGordB

dcoscina said:


> I wish these i9s were around in 2018 when I had to shop for a new computer. At the time it was between a quad i7 iMac or MP 6,1 and after asking several pros, I went with the latter. Oh well...



Future me can so relate, because I don't want to be that guy saying (a few months or a year from now) "I wish these Apple Silicon Macs were around in 2020 when I was itching to upgrade. At the time it was between a bunch of new, cutting edge Intel Macs with single-core performance still just 20% faster than my stuttering 2014 i7 iMac. I bought one anyway because _I couldn't restrain myself!!!_! Now even the Mac Minis are rocking AS chips that are 50% faster than those last generation Intel dinosaurs." I'm also hoping the AS Macs will, like their iOS and iPadOS counterparts, be much better at running multiple apps at once (so music production isn't so easily wrecked by other apps running in the background) and get much more out of less RAM (in part, because I'm also fearing the days of user upgradeable RAM may end with this next generation of Macs).


----------



## jtnyc

Fox said:


> Except the i9 runs hotter, right, and thus is more likely to have issues with heat throttling.


I do wonder about this and I wish there was some more definitive info on it. I am about to pull the trigger on one of these and cant decide. I've been focused on single core scores as well considering I use Logic and the single core spikes when recording midi with heavy VI's is a concern. The i7 and i9 score almost the same for single core, so now I'm thinking the faster clock speed of the i7 isn't all that much of advantage so I might be better off with the nearly 1100 point advantage that the i9 gives for multi core. My only concern is, are those i9's gonna actually run that much hotter and create more fan and throttling noise....

I visited the Apple Store in NYC today and A/B ed the standard glossy display to the nano textured one. I hate reflections. I'm still using a 23 inch cinema display which is matte. The Nano looks really nice and there were no reflections to speak of, and that was in a bright room with lights and windows everywhere. Now when looking at copy and going back and forth, the glossy is crisper and the contrast feels sharper (but there were reflections), but I didn't notice anything bad when first looking at the Nano. I'm still a little unsure, but think I will go with the Nano...


----------



## khollister

Interesting that the Geekbench browser shows a multi score of 9067 for the i9 iMac vs 9451 for the 10 core iMac Pro in spite of the i9 being faster both in base clock and turbo. However, Barefeats shows a GB multi score of 9933 for the i9 and comments that the 8 core GB speeds went up dramatically when they moved the 2 DIMM's to enable dual channel RAM mode. This kinda implies to me that Apple shipped the i7/i9 iMacs with the 2 RAM DIMM's in non-optimal positions. Seems unlikely, but the Barefeats GB scored for the i9 reflects what I would have expected for the i9 vs iMP unless the i9 was throttling significantly.

Curious if any new iMac owners have checked their RAM install (assuming they haven't already upgraded with 4 DIMM's) and what they are seeing on GB tests.


----------



## SteveK

I am planning to retain the 8GB supplied and add 2 lots of 32GB in the other slots to get 72GB total. Does that give any issues and what was the problem with non optimal RAM positioning from the factory? Where were they positioned?

Regarding the fan noise and heat issues surely the i9 can cope with more heavy loading before it struggles compared to the 8 core or is it likely to throttle more easily under lighter loads? I’m unlikely to push it to the limits as I don’t expect to be exceeding 100 tracks as a max but will be looking to run lots of synth VSTs as well including several instances of Omnisphere and things like spitfire Symphonic Motions and Damage 2...

I suspect the 8 core will be enough but for £200 extra the 10 core seems like a jump worth taking for longer term ownership...

thanks


----------



## P3TAAL

SteveK said:


> I am planning to retain the 8GB supplied and add 2 lots of 32GB in the other slots to get 72GB total. Does that give any issues and what was the problem with non optimal RAM positioning from the factory? Where were they positioned?
> 
> Regarding the fan noise and heat issues surely the i9 can cope with more heavy loading before it struggles compared to the 8 core or is it likely to throttle more easily under lighter loads? I’m unlikely to push it to the limits as I don’t expect to be exceeding 100 tracks as a max but will be looking to run lots of synth VSTs as well including several instances of Omnisphere and things like spitfire Symphonic Motions and Damage 2...
> 
> I suspect the 8 core will be enough but for £200 extra the 10 core seems like a jump worth taking for longer term ownership...
> 
> thanks


The included apple ram doesn't seem to play nice with other manufacturers ram. I had to leave the apple ram out as mixing it with my new crucial ram resulted in the speed dropping from 2666mhz to 2133mhz. This happened no matter what order I put it in.


----------



## Patrick.K

Mike Marino said:


> Ah, I see them now. Thanks!


----------



## Patrick.K

Is the original Apple ram more reliable and stiffer than the one bought from Crucial or other third party manufacturers ?.
If I buy a new IMac and I put 128 GB to be safe, it's 1000 € vs 500 € ask a third party manufacturer!
What to do ?


----------



## P3TAAL

Patrick.K said:


> Is the original Apple ram more reliable and stiffer than the one bought from Crucial or other third party manufacturers ?.
> If I buy a new IMac and I put 128 GB to be safe, it's 1000 € vs 500 € ask a third party manufacturer!
> What to do ?


No the apple ram is no better as far as I know, I would definitely not buy it from apple even if I could afford to


----------



## Patrick.K

P3TAAL said:


> No the apple ram is no better as far as I know, I would definitely not buy it from apple even if I could afford to


Thank’s for the feedback


----------



## jobinho

rnb_2 said:


> The 2020 iMacs are all up on Geekbench:
> 
> i5 6c 3.1 5838
> i5 6c 3.3 5997
> i7 8c 3.8 7973
> i9 10c 3.6 9070
> 
> The i9 and i7 finally dethroned the 13" MBP on the single-core chart, knocking it down to a close third (1252/1247/1242). Really disappointing (lack of) gains in single-core performance, honestly, and just more evidence for why Apple is ditching Intel. Intel claims that the next chip series will see big gains, but the damage has already been done.
> 
> If you need a new Mac now and/or depend on plugins or libraries that might take a while to move to Apple Silicon, the new iMacs are great machines, but very much the last gasp of What Was, ahead of the first glimpses of What Will Be.



These are underperforming scores. My 8c scores 9000 in Geekbench, 10c scores 10,000.

Most tests show negligible difference in audio work between these processors, and the i9 runs about 10 degrees hotter under load.


----------



## rnb_2

jobinho said:


> These are underperforming scores. My 8c scores 9000 in Geekbench, 10c scores 10,000.
> 
> Most tests show negligible difference in audio work between these processors, and the i9 runs about 10 degrees hotter under load.



I think Geekbench averages many submissions to get the score they post - if you look at the scores for any particular model, they're all over the place. I have no idea what accounts for the extreme low scores I've seen, but they undoubtedly bring the average down.

I think the i7 remains the bargain in the 2020 line - for the base "high end" config price, you get last year's expensive CTO (8-core) config with a better GPU. Unless you know you need the i9, the i7 is probably what you should be looking at.


----------



## SteveK

rnb_2 said:


> I think Geekbench averages many submissions to get the score they post - if you look at the scores for any particular model, they're all over the place. I have no idea what accounts for the extreme low scores I've seen, but they undoubtedly bring the average down.
> 
> I think the i7 remains the bargain in the 2020 line - for the base "high end" config price, you get last year's expensive CTO (8-core) config with a better GPU. Unless you know you need the i9, the i7 is probably what you should be looking at.


That’s the challenge isn’t it? How do you know if you need the i9 10 core? I’m still torn after this. I use Ableton and I’m not sure if more cores is beneficial with that DAW. I’ll use lots of Omnisphere as well. Perhaps 8 will be enough. But it’s a long term investment...


----------



## jtnyc

SteveK said:


> That’s the challenge isn’t it? How do you know if you need the i9 10 core? I’m still torn after this. I use Ableton and I’m not sure if more cores is beneficial with that DAW. I’ll use lots of Omnisphere as well. Perhaps 8 will be enough. But it’s a long term investment...


Same boat. I'm a logic user and I'm most focused on single core scores. The i7 and i9 single core scores are on average the same. The i9 scores about 1000 points higher for multi core than the i7 (Geekbench 5) I think that's about 10% or so, and that is nice, but do I need that? Hell, I'm currently using a 2008 8 core MacPro with 16 gigs of ram and I can run a lot of VI's. It's just the single core spikes when recording midi for heavy VI's where I run into trouble. 

Today, I'm leaning i7 8 core, 1tb drive, upgrading to 64 gig's of OWC ram and the Nano texture display... we'll see what tomorrow brings. Maybe I'll lean i9 again, but I do worry about the i9's running hotter and some say their wattage is capped to reduce heating therefor they don't turbo boost as high as the i7's.

At the end of the day I know the i7 will be a total monster compared to what I am running now, that's for sure.


----------



## SGordB

Single-core performance is the gold standard/bottleneck for me, too. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the leaked score of the A14 bionic chip — the chip expected to set the minimum standard for the Apple Silicon Macs — is 1583 (https://www.iphonehacks.com/2020/10/iphone-12-a14-bionic-geekbench-scores-leak.html). That’s around 25% faster than the fastest Intel iMacs. For the _very_ patient, the A15s likely to power new Macs late next year, could clock in closer to 2000, given the pace of Apple’s chip development so far.


----------



## SteveK

For anyone still trying to decide between the 2020 iMac i7 or i9 this thread may be useful or of interest.









Decision time i7 vs i9 for new 2020 iMac?


In a couple weeks (saving my pennies) I plan to order a new 2020 27" iMac to replace my mid-2011 (4 core i5). I have a question/ looking for opinions... What I know I'll be getting: One of the top-tier processors 5700 XT 16GB Radeon graphics. 8GB memory (and buy additional 64GB at OWC). 1TB...




forums.macrumors.com





I’m pretty much decided to go with i7 8 core with a 2 TB SSD and add 64GB of third party a RAM.


----------



## synthnut1

I just got a new iMac i7.....The differences in speed between the i7 and the i9 were not tremendously different....The design of the iMac had me thinking about heat more than speed....As far as waiting for the newer,faster, more exciting, silicone iMac, I thought about how long it took for developers to get up to speed with Catalina....and that’s with just an OS change....By the time all the kinks are worked out on the silicon Mac’s, I should be just about ready for a new computer once again, unless I jump ship again and go with a PC again....This iMac is my first Mac in quite a few years....I’ve been enjoying PC’s after Apple started making very expensive, unappealing, computers...basically after Steve J passed on....


----------



## BassClef

Late 2014, 27" iMac, i7 4core, 32GB ram, 27" display here. 

As a Logic user with everyone telling me the importance of single core speed, I guess my 4.0GHz (4.4 Turbo) machine still ain't too shabby!


----------



## Ashermusic

BassClef said:


> Late 2014, 27" iMac, i7 4core, 32GB ram, 27" display here.
> 
> As a Logic user with everyone telling me the importance of single core speed, I guess my 4.0GHz (4.4 Turbo) machine still ain't too shabby!



You can’t judge only by clock speed. A faster chip with a lower clock speed is still faster.


----------



## Umi_Yu

I bought this new iMac in the first week of October. 10th generation i9 10-core CPU works pretty good. Projects torturing my old Mac perform no system overload issue at all! Quite satisfied!


----------



## emilio_n

BassClef said:


> Late 2014, 27" iMac, i7 4core, 32GB ram, 27" display here.
> 
> As a Logic user with everyone telling me the importance of single core speed, I guess my 4.0GHz (4.4 Turbo) machine still ain't too shabby!


I have the Late 2015, but my problem is more about the max RAM I can add. 32 is not enough for me...


----------



## rnb_2

emilio_n said:


> I have the Late 2015, but my problem is more about the max RAM I can add. 32 is not enough for me...



Just from raw benchmarks, those 2014/2015 machines are surprisingly speedy at single core - about 80% of the fastest Macs currently available (2020 i7/i9 iMac). There have probably been some internal optimizations that make the comparison not quite that simple, but it's actually a testament to how little progress Intel has made in the last 6 years that it's close at all.

In percentage terms, single core performance improved as much between 2012 and 2014 as it has from 2014 to 2020. Some of that is probably down to lowering non-Turbo clock speeds to allow thermal headroom for more cores - nothing has gotten back to 4GHz+ base clock since the last 4-core i7 iMac in 2017 - but they probably also saw decreasing benefit to increased clocks in single core and decided it was worth the sacrifice to increase multi-core performance by just throwing more cores at the problem.


----------



## emilio_n

rnb_2 said:


> Just from raw benchmarks, those 2014/2015 machines are surprisingly speedy at single core - about 80% of the fastest Macs currently available (2020 i7/i9 iMac). There have probably been some internal optimizations that make the comparison not quite that simple, but it's actually a testament to how little progress Intel has made in the last 6 years that it's close at all.
> 
> In percentage terms, single core performance improved as much between 2012 and 2014 as it has from 2014 to 2020. Some of that is probably down to lowering non-Turbo clock speeds to allow thermal headroom for more cores - nothing has gotten back to 4GHz+ base clock since the last 4-core i7 iMac in 2017 - but they probably also saw decreasing benefit to increased clocks in single core and decided it was worth the sacrifice to increase multi-core performance by just throwing more cores at the problem.


Exactly.
If I can just put 64gb on my Late 2015 I think I will wait until the new models, crossing fingers that Windows have an ARM version to use bootcamp and Apple still let us add 3rd party RAM


----------



## rnb_2

emilio_n said:


> Exactly.
> If I can just put 64gb on my Late 2015 I think I will wait until the new models, crossing fingers that Windows have an ARM version to use bootcamp and Apple still let us add 3rd party RAM



To be clear, if you have a late 2015 (iMac 17,1), you should be able to upgrade to 64GB, but it's ridiculously expensive to do so.


----------



## emilio_n

rnb_2 said:


> To be clear, if you have a late 2015 (iMac 17,1), you should be able to upgrade to 64GB, but it's ridiculously expensive to do so.


I know, I know... this is the reason because I will finally buy these 2020 iMacs. I am just waiting the first Arm they will show soon to see what They are doing. 😉


----------



## P3TAAL

rnb_2 said:


> To be clear, if you have a late 2015 (iMac 17,1), you should be able to upgrade to 64GB, but it's ridiculously expensive to do so.


Just curious, Why is it expensive to put more ram in this particular iMac?


----------



## emilio_n

P3TAAL said:


> Just curious, Why is it expensive to put more ram in this particular iMac?


I think is because this kind of RAM is old now and not so easy to find, so the cost is bigger. In any case, I max up min with 32Gb. Impossible to add more :-(


----------



## Nate Johnson

Hey, so is anyone with one of these new iMacs experimenting with running libraries off the system drive? Recent conversations around the ‘separate drives for libraries’ concept are starting to shift from that paradigm to SSDs (especially NVMe) being able to handle os/projects/libraries on the same drive. I ask as it will influence my decision on what size drive to order with an iMac.


----------



## Baktus

Nate Johnson said:


> Hey, so is anyone with one of these new iMacs experimenting with running libraries off the system drive? Recent conversations around the ‘separate drives for libraries’ concept are starting to shift from that paradigm to SSDs (especially NVMe) being able to handle os/projects/libraries on the same drive. I ask as it will influence my decision on what size drive to order with an iMac.


Since the internal SSD is very expensive from Apple (just like RAM) I took internal the 512GB SSD and external a cheaper one with thunderbold 3 / NVMe which is about as fast as the internal: The Samsung SSD X5 with 2TB


----------



## Nate Johnson

Baktus said:


> Since the internal SSD is very expensive from Apple (just like RAM) I took internal the 512GB SSD and external a cheaper one with thunderbold 3 / NVMe which is about as fast as the internal: The Samsung SSD X5 with 2TB



totally get that, but if the performance is the same or better by eliminating an external device I’m down with spending the extra money (although it looks like purchasing through discount sites levels it all out anyways!)


----------



## Michael Antrum

emilio_n said:


> I think is because this kind of RAM is old now and not so easy to find, so the cost is bigger. In any case, I max up min with 32Gb. Impossible to add more :-(




You are mistaken there.

I've got 48gb in my 2015 27" iMac. You can go up to 64gb - but it's not cheap. I bought my 2 x 16gb modules from Crucial, who don't make them any more, but there are other vendors who still make 2 x 16gb kits for iMac 2015.....

Edit:


----------



## emilio_n

Michael Antrum said:


> You are mistaken there.
> 
> I've got 48gb in my 2015 27" iMac. You can go up to 64gb - but it's not cheap. I bought my 2 x 16gb modules from Crucial, who don't make them any more, but there are other vendors who still make 2 x 16gb kits for iMac 2015.....
> 
> Edit:



Wow, it's expensive! I think don't worth it right now.
I think the iMac 2020 will be a better choice. Shame that I can't use my old iMac as the second monitor.


----------



## SteveK

I finally decided and got the new 2020 iMac i7 8 core with a 2 TB SSD and I’ve added 64GB of RAM and taken out the 8 GB supplied after reading the various posts.

After 2 days of migrating some data and reinstalling Ableton Live 10, various libraries and synths I’ve had a chance to play around. What an improvement over my 10 year old IMac! No surprise but it’s so nice to have things happen almost instantly and with no noise at all from the Mac.

The libraries are fast loading on the SSD and no problems other than some repair needed on Spitfire BBCSO core a couple of times but seems fine now. I need to batch resave all my other Kontakt things but they are very fast anyway.

A piece I was working on which was killing my old machine with only 7-8 tracks barely hits 6% CPU on this. Spitfire templates for Core which were unusable before are quick to load and playable immediately.

i did a quick basic test earlier with 20 tracks of Omnisphere playing the same 2 bar loop and then me playing more chords over it With another instance. Got to 35% and for the first time since having it the fans started up but immediately ceased when I stopped playback. Not that noisy but a surprise given no noise at all at any point before that.

I’m sure I’m imagining it but everything sounds better to me as well especially synths. Perhaps that is possible given 10 years of DA conversion improvements. Whatever the reason it all sounds brilliant.

i can make some full tracks now. Thanks for all the advice on here
Steve


----------



## synthnut1

Steve,
I’m getting closer to being able to work with my iMac i7....I’m getting over my security rant that seemed to slow me down, but I know it will cease when most everything is loaded...I have the same machine as yours, and have 2-32 ram chips heading my way....I have a Metric Halo ULN-2 3d interface hooked up to mine...It’s got pristine sound and combined with the very quiet iMac, I’m getting little work done,but I’m sure enjoying some good listening while waiting for more goodies to come...I’m now contemplating some high end monitors...My “not so bad” monitors sound really good, and I can only imagine how good something like Amphion One18’s would sound....Good Luck with yours...I’m sure enjoying mine !

btw...from what I’m reading, you can put your 2-32gb chips in slots 1&2, and put your original 2-4gb chips in slots 3&4, and you will retain the original speed on your computer...I’ll post again when my ram gets here


----------



## jcrosby

synthnut1 said:


> I have a Metric Halo ULN-2 3d interface hooked up to mine...


I <3 the shit out of mine.


----------



## synthnut1

They use to be close by when they were in NY....Great bunch of guys...was good to see them last year at AES in NYC


----------



## Nate Johnson

*finally* pulled the trigger on an i7 8-core. 64gb ram. Jeez louise, its been over a year I’ve spent trying to figure out what to upgrade to!

I almost went with the 6 core mini, but I think I’m going to appreciate the extra power and ram expansion, not to mention the beautiful screen. I’m also hoping to experiment more with video, so having a dedicated GPU seems like the wiser move.

can’t wait for it to arrive (3-4 weeks - ugh)

But the REAL challenge - trying not to buy any libraries come BF. Definitely blew through my budget with this one!!


----------



## Michael Antrum

Nate Johnson said:


> But the REAL challenge - trying not to buy any libraries come BF. Definitely blew through my budget with this one!!


----------



## Rex282

Nate Johnson said:


> *finally* pulled the trigger on an i7 8-core. 64gb ram. Jeez louise, its been over a year I’ve spent trying to figure out what to upgrade to!
> 
> I almost went with the 6 core mini, but I think I’m going to appreciate the extra power and ram expansion, not to mention the beautiful screen. I’m also hoping to experiment more with video, so having a dedicated GPU seems like the wiser move.
> 
> can’t wait for it to arrive (3-4 weeks - ugh)
> 
> But the REAL challenge - trying not to buy any libraries come BF. Definitely blew through my budget with this one!!



Congrads I got the the same but with 128gb ram from OWC...for anyone who is thinking about getting a Mac and don't want to wait for Apples long ship time I got my iMac at Bestbuy shipping was next day(I'm in Long Beach Ca)


----------



## Nate Johnson

Rex282 said:


> Congrads I got the the same but with 128gb ram from OWC...for anyone who is thinking about getting a Mac and don't want to wait for Apples long ship time I got my iMac at Bestbuy shipping was next day(I'm in Long Beach Ca)



oh dang. I went through Expercom using a coupon code ($130~ off) and their ram ended up being $50~ cheaper than OWC (who I normally buy from)


----------



## synthnut1

I’m going thru some major $$$ myself with external ssd’s , memory, programs...I’m so broke I can’t pay attention !!


----------



## synthnut1

I got 2-32gb Adamanta ram chips through Amazon....The price was $229. and change plus tax....This is considerably cheaper than a lot of other companies, and when installed as they say (directions included) my 2020 iMac is running smoothly at 2667mhz with 72 gb’s of total ram...I have so many items to purchase that I took a crap shoot on this ram, and it turned out for the better...


----------



## Vik

gh0stwrit3r said:


> I could not resist anymore. I told myself not to do it. But then again I started watching reviews and so ... damn, this machine is so good! And we know that this model works. So eventually I was lost and pushed the buy button.
> 
> I bought the iMac 2020 with an i7 chip and the 5500XT graphics. Upgraded the RAM to 64GB with OWC. It's a fraction of the budget that I had in mind ... at least that's one of my excuses !lol!
> 
> Cause:
> 
> I didn't opt-in for the i9 (I think it's an unnecessary overkill)
> I didn't upgrade the GPU to the most expensive card (the tests/reviews show that I don't get huge advantages with the upgrade for the work I'm doing)
> I didn't buy 128GB of RAM (I can upgrade later)
> I start to love the default included mouse (it impressed me to be honest)
> I adapt to the small keyboard (it looks nice)
> 
> And today I tested my orchestral template - that I never could build and use on my old i5 iMac out of 2013. All the instruments are in it. More than 100 tracks. Routings to busses with Reverb and FX. And it works like a charm!
> 
> I never have been so happy with a new computer! I'll be fine for the upcoming years


Hi – still happy? (And - is that the 3,8 GHz processor?)


----------



## gh0stwrit3r

Vik said:


> Hi – still happy? (And - is that the 3,8 GHz processor?)


Very happy with it! Everything works perfectly smooth without any problems. 
And yes, it's the 3.8 GHz 8 core intel i7


----------



## Gusteeno

Just wanted to bump this thread because I'm currently looking to upgrade from a "mid-2017 3.4GHz i5 iMac 64gb RAM" to a 2020 iMac (not wanting to wait for the new iMac announcement). 

My question to all of you who have upgraded to the 2020 iMac is whether or not the i9 will allow for a more robust orchestral template (200+ tracks with Kontakt loaded on every track) than the i7? I will be maxing out the RAM at 128gb and upgrading to a 1TB SSD internally whichever CPU i choose.

On my current mid-2017 quad core i5 iMac w/ 64gb RAM I have my Ableton Live 10 template up to 200 tracks with Kontakt on each track (with every instance turned off until ready to use it) and yet I've already maxed out my RAM somehow at 60GB. I assumed having each kontakt instance turned off would use no RAM but I guess thats not the case, unless its the number of tracks alone that is causing that. Not sure!

Anyway, I'd love to finish this epic template at about 250 tracks so I'm just hoping someone out there that also uses huge Orchestral/Kontakt templates on the 2020 iMac i7 or i9 can chime in and let me know what's possible and what would be too much for it to handle.

Thanks so much!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Gusteeno said:


> Just wanted to bump this thread because I'm currently looking to upgrade from a "mid-2017 3.4GHz i5 iMac 64gb RAM" to a 2020 iMac (not wanting to wait for the new iMac announcement).
> 
> My question to all of you who have upgraded to the 2020 iMac is whether or not the i9 will allow for a more robust orchestral template (200+ tracks with Kontakt loaded on every track) than the i7? I will be maxing out the RAM at 128gb and upgrading to a 1TB SSD internally whichever CPU i choose.
> 
> On my current mid-2017 quad core i5 iMac w/ 64gb RAM I have my Ableton Live 10 template up to 200 tracks with Kontakt on each track (with every instance turned off until ready to use it) and yet I've already maxed out my RAM somehow at 60GB. I assumed having each kontakt instance turned off would use no RAM but I guess thats not the case, unless its the number of tracks alone that is causing that. Not sure!
> 
> Anyway, I'd love to finish this epic template at about 250 tracks so I'm just hoping someone out there that also uses huge Orchestral/Kontakt templates on the 2020 iMac i7 or i9 can chime in and let me know what's possible and what would be too much for it to handle.
> 
> Thanks so much!


I have a 2020 i7 (I didn't see the benefit to the i9). It all depends what libraries you are using, but I put mine to the test and could easily load what I was using on my slave....which averaged 150+ tracks of HS Diamond, BBCSO, etc. For that reason, I sold the slave and do everything on the iMac now. Even though it can handle my templates, I have gone with the "dynamic loading" approach in Logic (and disabled tracks in Cubase). I went this route because I can literally have a 1000+ track template ready to go, and it takes merely seconds to load an instrument. 

I also went with a 1TB internal, and bought OWC ram. Samples run from a Samsung T5, T6, EVO and Crucial (both in a $10 enclusure).....all connected to USB3. I've been using this setup since March and it has been a real treat. I don't even use VEPro any more. 

Whichever you choose, put the iMac though some "pressure tests" within the first two weeks. If it doesn't old up, just return it to Apple for a full refund. I'm sure you'd be satisfied though!


----------



## Gusteeno

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I have a 2020 i7 (I didn't see the benefit to the i9). It all depends what libraries you are using, but I put mine to the test and could easily load what I was using on my slave....which averaged 150+ tracks of HS Diamond, BBCSO, etc. For that reason, I sold the slave and do everything on the iMac now. Even though it can handle my templates, I have gone with the "dynamic loading" approach in Logic (and disabled tracks in Cubase). I went this route because I can literally have a 1000+ track template ready to go, and it takes merely seconds to load an instrument.
> 
> I also went with a 1TB internal, and bought OWC ram. Samples run from a Samsung T5, T6, EVO and Crucial (both in a $10 enclusure).....all connected to USB3. I've been using this setup since March and it has been a real treat. I don't even use VEPro any more.
> 
> Whichever you choose, put the iMac though some "pressure tests" within the first two weeks. If it doesn't old up, just return it to Apple for a full refund. I'm sure you'd be satisfied though!


Wow, this was super helpful to hear thank you! I have been building up my “ultimate” template for awhile now and am at 200 tracks, dynamically loaded, but have hit the limit on my 64gb RAM somehow even without any plugins enabled. Is it normal for the RAM to still be affected like that, or is that maybe just how Ableton handles Kontakt?

Essentially, how much RAM do you have installed and does that 1000 track template tax your RAM as well even with VST’s/processing bypassed?

Lastly, what’s the lowest buffer size are you able to work at comfortably with large projects?

Thanks again!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Gusteeno said:


> Wow, this was super helpful to hear thank you! I have been building up my “ultimate” template for awhile now and am at 200 tracks, dynamically loaded, but have hit the limit on my 64gb RAM somehow even without any plugins enabled. Is it normal for the RAM to still be affected like that, or is that maybe just how Ableton handles Kontakt?
> 
> Essentially, how much RAM do you have installed and does that 1000 track template tax your RAM as well even with VST’s/processing bypassed?
> 
> Lastly, what’s the lowest buffer size are you able to work at comfortably with large projects?
> 
> Thanks again!


I am not familiar with Ableton. I have 128GB Ram, but with dynamic loading in Logic it’s a very low Ram footprint with a new project, regardless of the track count. Nothing loads until I select a track.

I work with a buffer of 128. I’m using an Apogee Element connected to Thunderbolt 3, which integrates seamlessly into Logic.


----------



## jbuhler

Gusteeno said:


> Wow, this was super helpful to hear thank you! I have been building up my “ultimate” template for awhile now and am at 200 tracks, dynamically loaded, but have hit the limit on my 64gb RAM somehow even without any plugins enabled. Is it normal for the RAM to still be affected like that, or is that maybe just how Ableton handles Kontakt?
> 
> Essentially, how much RAM do you have installed and does that 1000 track template tax your RAM as well even with VST’s/processing bypassed?
> 
> Lastly, what’s the lowest buffer size are you able to work at comfortably with large projects?
> 
> Thanks again!


I have the 2020 i9 iMac, also using Logic and the dynamic loading there. How many instruments you can load into RAM will depend somewhat on your DFD setting in Kontakt and other samplers, which determines how much of the sample is loaded into RAM and how much is streamed from disk. I've been running DFD with 18kb in Kontakt. 

For the buffer, I can usually run at 128 but occasionally need to change to 256. With my 2015 i7 iMac, I was almost always running at 512, so there have been some definite performance gains there. 

The i9 is definitely a more capable machine than my i7, and I'm quite pleased with it, but I've been surprised where I've seen performance gains and where I haven't. The i9 is much quieter—with audio work the fans rarely come on at all, and when they do it's usually at the lowest setting. I hear them somewhat more during video production (the main reason I opted for the i9 rather than the i7 was video work). But the general performance gains have been less than I would have thought with audio. I now have 10 cores but the 4 cores on my old i7 (4Ghz) were marginally faster (3.6Ghz for the i9) so I wonder if that's part of why I'm not seeing more difference. For anything that must use a single core, that's a bottle neck that keeps the i9 from showing better audio performance. I don't know if that's what's going on, I just know that the 2020 i9 doesn't seem leaps and bounds better than the 2015 i7.


----------



## Gusteeno

jbuhler said:


> I have the 2020 i9 iMac, also using Logic and the dynamic loading there. How many instruments you can load into RAM will depend somewhat on your DFD setting in Kontakt and other samplers, which determines how much of the sample is loaded into RAM and how much is streamed from disk. I've been running DFD with 18kb in Kontakt.
> 
> For the buffer, I can usually run at 128 but occasionally need to change to 256. With my 2015 i7 iMac, I was almost always running at 512, so there have been some definite performance gains there.
> 
> The i9 is definitely a more capable machine than my i7, and I'm quite pleased with it, but I've been surprised where I've seen performance gains and where I haven't. The i9 is much quieter—with audio work the fans rarely come on at all, and when they do it's usually at the lowest setting. I hear them somewhat more during video production (the main reason I opted for the i9 rather than the i7 was video work). But the general performance gains have been less than I would have thought with audio. I now have 10 cores but the 4 cores on my old i7 (4Ghz) were marginally faster (3.6Ghz for the i9) so I wonder if that's part of why I'm not seeing more difference. For anything that must use a single core, that's a bottle neck that keeps the i9 from showing better audio performance. I don't know if that's what's going on, I just know that the 2020 i9 doesn't seem leaps and bounds better than the 2015 i7.


Thank you for sharing! I will be coming from a Mid 2017 4-core i5 (3.4Ghz), so would you say the jump from that to the i9 would be worth it if the extra $400 isn't an issue? Or are the differences between the i7/i9 not worth that?

Also, I'm not too familiar with DFD but it sounds like something worth me looking into because like I previously said, i've got no instances of kontakt turned on in my 200 track template and yet I've maxed out my 64gb RAM. So if there's a way to avoid that it would be a HUGE win and I'll be very grateful for your suggestion to do so! Just have to figure out how to turn that option on for all my libraries...


----------



## jbuhler

Gusteeno said:


> Thank you for sharing! I will be coming from a Mid 2017 4-core i5 (3.4Ghz), so would you say the jump from that to the i9 would be worth it if the extra $400 isn't an issue? Or are the differences between the i7/i9 not worth that?
> 
> Also, I'm not too familiar with DFD but it sounds like something worth me looking into because like I previously said, i've got no instances of kontakt turned on in my 200 track template and yet I've maxed out my 64gb RAM. So if there's a way to avoid that it would be a HUGE win and I'll be very grateful for your suggestion to do so! Just have to figure out how to turn that option on for all my libraries...


When you open preferences of Kontakt, and press the memory tab, this is what you will see:





The smaller the number, the less room each instrument takes up in RAM. 

Another thing you can do is purge all your Kontakt instances. That will allow Kontakt to load only the samples that are in use in the project. 

You can also reduce all instruments to a single mic until the final stages, and then freeze and add the additional mics.

One final thing you can look at is seeing whether your DAW allows you to disable tracks not in use. That made a huge difference when Logic added that functionality.

128GB will also obviously give you more RAM compared to 64GB but not nearly as much as you might think if you're currently doing a lot of RAM saving techniques, especially limiting your microphones, since a second microphone position doubles the size of RAM used, and third microphone is three times the original... You eat that additional RAM almost immediately if you stop using those techniques.

I like my i9 very much, and that and the better GPU in the version I have, did improve the times for rendering and transcoding of video quite considerably compared to my 2015 i7. It's just with audio work that, aside from the fan almost never coming on, the changes are less noticeable. I did improve my buffer setting from 512 to 128/256 and I was able to shift the dfd from 24-30 down to 18. But that might have been due to a shift from my external disks being on USB3 to being in a thunderbolt enclosure. 

I'm not currently using a formal template. But my projects tend to average around 50-60 multi articulation tracks (mostly SF and OT, each track has maybe an average of 12 articulations loaded, triggered by keyswitches, so if I was loading articulations separately it would be maybe 600 tracks). Of those, about half (SF SCS and SSO) use stereo mixes that are the equivalent of 1 mic, but most of the others use 3 and sometimes more mics. Typically I'm using somewhere between 70-90GB of memory for that. The machine works well under those conditions, though oddly every couple of days I do get a sample overload error on playback. I chalk that up to the IT security programs that I'm forced to run as background processes, but it doesn't happen frequently enough that I've felt the need to track it down.

As for the difference between the current i7 and i9 models, my sense is that the 8 core i7 is sufficient for audio work, but the i9 (and upgrading the GPU) is worth it if you are doing other intensive tasks like rendering and transcoding video, or if you just like the idea of having the extra horsepower when needed. The fear had been that the i9 processor tends to run a bit hot, and so the fan of the i9 would come on more frequently than with the i7. But my experience with the i9 and audio is that the CPU doesn't have to work that hard or Apple's improved its method of cooling sufficiently that the fan noise isn't really much of an issue.


----------



## Vik

jbuhler said:


> But my experience with the i9 and audio is that the CPU doesn't have to work that hard


Is that true for running dozens of orchestral sample libraries too? Does it handle layering well (eg two Kontakt string sections on the same track)?


----------



## jbuhler

Vik said:


> Is that true for running dozens of orchestral sample libraries too? Does it handle layering well (eg two Kontakt string sections on the same track)?


I think so. I don't work quite that way, usually one instrument's worth of articulations per Kontakt instance. So I might have like four Kontakt instruments open in a single Kontakt instance for SCS violin 1 to cover all the articulations. If I'm layering strings, I'll add new tracks for each library and copy and adjust the midi accordingly, and group all of that in a summing stack for processing. 

But I do have a Unify patch that has all of my violin legatos, another for the violas, another for the cellos, etc. And I use that to test layering, A/B libraries, helping remember what libraries I have, and so forth. My big violin 1 legato patch currently has 16 libraries in it (I see I have a few recent purchases to add) and there is no issue with any clicks, pops or other artifacts if I have them all active.

As close as I come to a standard template these days would be something like all of SSW and SSB loaded along with AR-1, plus Herring Clarinet, OT Arks Trumpets and Horns, JXL solo Trombone, and a smattering of isolated articulations from SStB and Century Brass, some combination of SSS, SCS, HZS, BSS, and Afflatus for strings, and timp, harp, celeste and whatever other percussion I might need. The set up handles all of that and more very easily.


----------



## Gusteeno

jbuhler said:


> When you open preferences of Kontakt, and press the memory tab, this is what you will see:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The smaller the number, the less room each instrument takes up in RAM.
> 
> Another thing you can do is purge all your Kontakt instances. That will allow Kontakt to load only the samples that are in use in the project.
> 
> You can also reduce all instruments to a single mic until the final stages, and then freeze and add the additional mics.
> 
> One final thing you can look at is seeing whether your DAW allows you to disable tracks not in use. That made a huge difference when Logic added that functionality.
> 
> 128GB will also obviously give you more RAM compared to 64GB but not nearly as much as you might think if you're currently doing a lot of RAM saving techniques, especially limiting your microphones, since a second microphone position doubles the size of RAM used, and third microphone is three times the original... You eat that additional RAM almost immediately if you stop using those techniques.
> 
> I like my i9 very much, and that and the better GPU in the version I have, did improve the times for rendering and transcoding of video quite considerably compared to my 2015 i7. It's just with audio work that, aside from the fan almost never coming on, the changes are less noticeable. I did improve my buffer setting from 512 to 128/256 and I was able to shift the dfd from 24-30 down to 18. But that might have been due to a shift from my external disks being on USB3 to being in a thunderbolt enclosure.
> 
> I'm not currently using a formal template. But my projects tend to average around 50-60 multi articulation tracks (mostly SF and OT, each track has maybe an average of 12 articulations loaded, triggered by keyswitches, so if I was loading articulations separately it would be maybe 600 tracks). Of those, about half (SF SCS and SSO) use stereo mixes that are the equivalent of 1 mic, but most of the others use 3 and sometimes more mics. Typically I'm using somewhere between 70-90GB of memory for that. The machine works well under those conditions, though oddly every couple of days I do get a sample overload error on playback. I chalk that up to the IT security programs that I'm forced to run as background processes, but it doesn't happen frequently enough that I've felt the need to track it down.
> 
> As for the difference between the current i7 and i9 models, my sense is that the 8 core i7 is sufficient for audio work, but the i9 (and upgrading the GPU) is worth it if you are doing other intensive tasks like rendering and transcoding video, or if you just like the idea of having the extra horsepower when needed. The fear had been that the i9 processor tends to run a bit hot, and so the fan of the i9 would come on more frequently than with the i7. But my experience with the i9 and audio is that the CPU doesn't have to work that hard or Apple's improved its method of cooling sufficiently that the fan noise isn't really much of an issue.


Very relieved to hear the fan noise hasn't been an issue for you during audio production! That was one of the only issues making me hesitant about getting the i9. In fact, I think I've now come to the final decision to go ahead and purchase the i9 thanks to your help  I don't do any video editing, but it's the "extra horsepower" that is the appeal to me just in case my template does get very large. 

Thank you so much for your help. Excited to go buy my new machine!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Gusteeno said:


> Very relieved to hear the fan noise hasn't been an issue for you during audio production! That was one of the only issues making me hesitant about getting the i9. In fact, I think I've now come to the final decision to go ahead and purchase the i9 thanks to your help  I don't do any video editing, but it's the "extra horsepower" that is the appeal to me just in case my template does get very large.
> 
> Thank you so much for your help. Excited to go buy my new machine!


Good choice! I seem to recall the single core performance is better on the i7, but if you can afford it, go with the i9.


----------



## SteveK

@Gusteeno I had the same choice to make a year ago and went with the 2020 i7 which has been more than adequate for my needs and totally solid. The fans have come on only twice for a minute or so in the time I’ve had it when I was doing a large upgrade. I don’t do video work hence went i7 as it seemed enough for audio and I’m not a professional.

l use Ableton Live 11 and I tried to disable some tracks to check the RAM load impact. I may be doing it wrong but I couldn’t seem to reduce the RAM use by playing with track status selections. I’ll try again but keen to know if it works.

enjoy your new iMac!
Steve


----------

