2017 5k iMac?

[Fishrrman]

Scream --

I think you'll probably find that the speeds you get from USB3.1 gen2 are "good enough" (at least for now).
I have the exact Orico enclosure, which I use with an nvme drive for backups.
Be aware that it does get pretty warm under heavy load.
(but I reckon that most nvme drives in similar enclosures do the same)

 

[mj_]

Fusion Drive was not fine in 2017. It is even less fine today. Spinning hard drives are only suitable for long term storage. For active work, even running an operating system, SSD are a must nowadays.

I always find it amusing when poeple impose their own experience onto others and declare it the ultimate, the one and only truth. It has become something of a habit on forums worldwide to slander hard drives for their mere existence. According to the general crowd wisdom of the internet, if such a thing even exists, hard drives are the root of all evil and should have been outlawed a long time ago. It doesn't matter that whether or not one even notices the undeniable benefits of SSDs depends heavily on what kind of work they do.

Scrubbing 8k video all day while simultaneously exporting 1000+ photos from Lightroom and rendering three live video streams in the background at the same time? Get the fastest storage you can, because even a simple NVMe SSD is going to make your live living hell.

Writing texts in Word, crunching numbers in Excel, doing business in Salesforce, communicating with customers via email, Teams, Slack, etc.? You ain't gonna notice a thing. Nothing at all. Literally.

Please remember to differentiate. Some people are fine with Fusion Drives. Others are not. The fact that you require (or prefer) an SSD for your specific line of work does not mean others will benefit from it in the same way you do. Don't assume that because it is not acceptable for you it must be unacceptable for everyone else as well. It's not that simple

@jm31828 That is a great deal for a 2017 iMac. However, you will have to share what kind of work you are planning to do with it before we can tell you whether or not a hexa-core would be beneficial.

 

[537635]

I always find it amusing when poeple impose their own experience onto others and declare it the ultimate, the one and only truth. It has become something of a habit on forums worldwide to slander hard drives for their mere existence. According to the general crowd wisdom of the internet, if such a thing even exists, hard drives are the root of all evil and should have been outlawed a long time ago. It doesn't matter that whether or not one even notices the undeniable benefits of SSDs depends heavily on what kind of work they do.

Scrubbing 8k video all day while simultaneously exporting 1000+ photos from Lightroom and rendering three live video streams in the background at the same time? Get the fastest storage you can, because even a simple NVMe SSD is going to make your live living hell.

Writing texts in Word, crunching numbers in Excel, doing business in Salesforce, communicating with customers via email, Teams, Slack, etc.? You ain't gonna notice a thing. Nothing at all. Literally.

Please remember to differentiate. Some people are fine with Fusion Drives. Others are not. The fact that you require (or prefer) an SSD for your specific line of work does not mean others will benefit from it in the same way you do. Don't assume that because it is not acceptable for you it must be unacceptable for everyone else as well. It's not that simple

@jm31828 That is a great deal for a 2017 iMac. However, you will have to share what kind of work you are planning to do with it before we can tell you whether or not a hexa-core would be beneficial.

Just no. Spinning hard drive used to be fine for light Office productivity, but it is not anymore. We are used to smooth interfaces on cellphones and tablets. Modern OSs and browsers are memory hungry. When those GB run out, stuff gets written to hard drive. On an average SSD this is fine. On a spinning hard drive things start to slow down extremely.

This isn't about 8k video or Photoshop. This is about your average Joe googling and putting numbers into Excel.

 

[mj_]

Just no. I have been working quite heaviliy with a 2017 base-model iMac with 16 GB of RAM and a 1TB Fusion Drive for the past roughly two years and I can assure you that not once has it slowed down because "stuff got written to the hard drive". And trust me, I do much more than googling and putting numbers into Excel. If your operating system starts swapping then you need more RAM and not a faster mass storage device, plain and simple. Mass storage is for saving files, not for temporarily storing the contents of your RAM because even the fastest NVMe SSD is annoyingly slow compared to modern DDR4 memory and only manages a fraction of its data rate (25.6 GB/s for DDR4-3200, 3GB/s sequential and just a couple of hundred MB/s random for a Samsung PM981).

 

[SCREAM ESP]

Scream --

I think you'll probably find that the speeds you get from USB3.1 gen2 are "good enough" (at least for now).
I have the exact Orico enclosure, which I use with an nvme drive for backups.
Be aware that it does get pretty warm under heavy load.
(but I reckon that most nvme drives in similar enclosures do the same)

Thanks for the advice Fishrrman, I'm aware about those drives running warm, hope not "hot" though...

I'm not into intensive tasks, no more than video editing from time to time and office work

PS: Holiday in Spain today, so I'm afraid I will not recieve the SSD until thursday...

 

[Ledgem]

Well.. it is actually simple, it says 10Gbps which means 1250Mbps, so you should reach about this speed at max, then the nvme drive can’t transfer its full power.

I'd imagine that for most people the absolute transfer speed matters much less than the IOPS and random read/write performance. As far as I know there's no penalty to those factors when using USB instead of Thunderbolt, so you'd still get the full benefit of the NVME drive and have a much more responsive system. People doing activity involving reading or writing very large files would get benefit from Thunderbolt over USB-C.

 

[ondert]

I'd imagine that for most people the absolute transfer speed matters much less than the IOPS and random read/write performance. As far as I know there's no penalty to those factors when using USB instead of Thunderbolt, so you'd still get the full benefit of the NVME drive and have a much more responsive system. People doing activity involving reading or writing very large files would get benefit from Thunderbolt over USB-C.

I’m planning to use external nvme ssd as a boot drive, so looking for an absolute beneficial solution but didn’t decide yet if an expensive tb3 enclosure will give me noticeable boost.

 

[theluggage]

It's TB3 for sure. Don't know why Amazon change description, but still says "Type-C 10Gbps"

Inside the box there are both USB and TB cables, maybe that can take to confusion

Just to clear this up: it is a USB 3.1 gen 2 device - which is capable of 10Gbps - and is definitely USB, and not Thunderbolt.

The cables supplied are USB-C to USB-C (not Thunderbolt) and USB-C to USB-A (old-style USB).

Technically USB-C is a universal connector system that can carry many different types of signal (USB3.1 g1, USB3.1 g2, USB2, Thunderbolt, DisplayPort, power, analog audio).

In reality "USB-C" is often used to mean "USB-C without Thunderbolt support" and "Thunderbolt 3" to mean "USB-C with Thunderbolt 3 support".

To confuse things even further, "USB-C" devices that only use USB 3 are often described as "Thunderbolt 3 compatible" because all "Thunderbolt 3" ports on Macs/PCs can support USB 3 peripherals.

It gets worse, because the latest generation of Thunderbolt chips allow some true Thunderbolt peripherals to "fall back" to USB 3 if they're plugged into a computer with USB-C and no Thunderbolt.

Also, a Thunderbolt 3 cable may look like a "regular" USB-C cable, but it isn't - anything other than a basic USB3 compatible cable has to have an ID chip that tells devices what protocols it supports.

Gbps/GBps/Mbps/MBps: To convert from bytes "B" to bits "b" - yes, a byte is (usually) 8 bits but serial connections need extra signalling bits so 1B -> 10b is a better estimate.

On Amazon, I see the Sabrent SSD stick (not the enclosure) listed as Data Transfer Rate: 3,400Mb/s - so 3.4Gb/s which is well within the capabilities of regular 5Gbps USB 3.1. However, that's only what limits continuous data transfers (and whether you can stream 8k video etc. which is what a lot of drive benchmarks are testing). For use as a system disc, that's like worrying about your car's top speed when you're driving through a busy city. Things like the access time re more important for a system drive where the computer will be accessing hundreds of different files in rapid succession. Any SSD is much faster than a mechanical HD in that respect. It may be that a TB3 drive would be faster than a USB3 one in that respect.

The important question to ask is whether the SSD enclosure supports TRIM on the Mac - which is important for keeping the drive healthy and fast. With older, SATA drives, that's something that Thunderbolt could do and USB3 couldn't. I don't know the situation with NvME drives. Maybe someone here knows?

Not having TRIM may not be a complete deal-breaker but - for a system drive - it is highly desirable.

 

[Ledgem]

On the bright side, USB 4, which should be coming out soon, is essentially Thunderbolt 3 and should clear up all of this confusion. The USB 3 and USB-C rollouts have been a mess.

 

[theluggage]

On the bright side, USB 4, which should be coming out soon, is essentially Thunderbolt 3 and should clear up all of this confusion.

You forgot the sarcasm tag. See:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3435844/thunderbolt-is-optional-in-usb4-usb4-spec-says.html

TLNR: there's going to be a new USB-C "mode" called "USB4" (added to all the things that USB-C already supports) which is based on TB3 technology and offers 20/40Gbps and most of the other technical advantages of TB3. However, even if manufacturers implement USB4, there's an extra optional part of the spec that includes the "quirks" needed to make it compatible with "real" TB3 devices. Its part of the "open" spec - no extra royalties - but it does need manufacturers to make the effort.

...and although USB4 is good news technically it is only going to make the confusion worse.

 

[Ledgem]

...and although USB4 is good news technically it is only going to make the confusion worse.

Classic problem:

(From XKCD)

 

[TheIntruder]

To borrow a phrase, USB-C has turned out to be a "bag of hurt" where the only thing that can be counted on is the shape of the connector.

The cables and kitchen sink of protocols funneled through it are a confused, jumbled fustercluck, with most users concerned only with whether a particular cable will fast charge their device.

The shame is that a lot of it could have been prevented if the USB IF had the focus and the stones to set higher standards for the C connector, and sacrificed some of the backward compatibility and cost-savings to ensure that USB-C truly represented a next generation, rather than just a new, unified connector (to the extreme) as the primary goal.

 

[chongsen]

I just crurious; why none points out that 2019 i5 (i5 9600k) is almost double the multi core performance of 2017 i5 (i5 7600)? 2019 i5 is even faster than 2017 i7. After AMD finally came back to Cpu battle on 2018, Intel has improved its Cpu performance significantly at last two years. Approximately, we will see another performance jump on 2020. I understand in last decade, especially, from 3rd gen to 7th gen, when AMD way behind, without any competition, Intel barely increase their Cpu performance. But the story has changed.

 

[Ledgem]

I just crurious; why none points out that 2019 i5 (i5 9600k) is almost double the multi core performance of 2017 i5 (i5 7600)? 2019 i5 is even faster than 2017 i7. After AMD finally came back to Cpu battle on 2018, Intel has improved its Cpu performance significantly at last two years. Approximately, we will see another performance jump on 2020. I understand in last decade, especially, from 3rd gen to 7th gen, when AMD way behind, without any competition, Intel barely increase their Cpu performance. But the story has changed.

It's actually not that great. The i5-7600 was a quad-core processor that lacked hyperthreading - you had to upgrade to the i7 for that feature. With the i5-9600k Intel has upped the true core count by two (now hexa-core). They also increased the minimum clock frequency by 200 MHz and increased the energy consumption by up to 30 watts. All that, and benchmarks indicate a performance increase of somewhere around 18-20%. If you compare it with the old i7-7700k (also featured in the 2017 iMacs), which is still quad-core but has hyperthreading, a faster base clock rate, and a similar energy consumption (although still slightly less than the i5-9600k), you're looking at a performance difference of about 10%.

In other words, Intel is adding on more cores, and increasing energy consumption. Adding more cores is valid but otherwise that's not a particularly impressive place to be. Progress is still good, but it's not quite as exciting as you made it out to be, unfortunately.

 

[chongsen]

It's actually not that great. The i5-7600 was a quad-core processor that lacked hyperthreading - you had to upgrade to the i7 for that feature. With the i5-9600k Intel has upped the true core count by two (now hexa-core). They also increased the minimum clock frequency by 200 MHz and increased the energy consumption by up to 30 watts. All that, and benchmarks indicate a performance increase of somewhere around 18-20%. If you compare it with the old i7-7700k (also featured in the 2017 iMacs), which is still quad-core but has hyperthreading, a faster base clock rate, and a similar energy consumption (although still slightly less than the i5-9600k), you're looking at a performance difference of about 10%.

In other words, Intel is adding on more cores, and increasing energy consumption. Adding more cores is valid but otherwise that's not a particularly impressive place to be. Progress is still good, but it's not quite as exciting as you made it out to be, unfortunately.

http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i5-9600k-vs-intel-core-i5-7600

Like I said, multi core performance is almost double.

On the other hand, as more cores are expected on 2020 CPUs, and none could reverse the cores battles in foreseeable future, entire software industry will follow up and avail those additional cores. Since the number of cores hardly increased in last decade, multi cores support is horrible at best. Only a handful of big names use 4 + cores. That will change soon. Predictably, we may see the difference on daily task in next 2 ~ 3 years.

Overall, I just think one should rethink about 7th gen CPU at current situation. I personally, will pay $200 more for a much better CPU performance alone, beside other minor improvements .

 

[Ledgem]

http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i5-9600k-vs-intel-core-i5-7600

Like I said, multi core performance is almost double.

I guess it depends on which benchmark website you look at.

Since the number of cores hardly increased in last decade, multi cores support is horrible at best. Only a handful of big names use 4 + cores. That will change soon. Predictably, we may see the difference on daily task in next 2 ~ 3 years.

Doubtful. You may be right that not everyone has great multicore support, but part of the problem is that not every computer task is a great match for parallel processing. Simply put, throwing more and more cores into processors will benefit some tasks, but won't provide that performance boost most came to expect with things like increasing clock rates back in the 1990's and early 2000's.

 

[chongsen]

I guess it depends on which benchmark website you look at.


Doubtful. You may be right that not everyone has great multicore support, but part of the problem is that not every computer task is a great match for parallel processing. Simply put, throwing more and more cores into processors will benefit some tasks, but won't provide that performance boost most came to expect with things like increasing clock rates back in the 1990's and early 2000's.

I believed cpu.userbenchmark.com focuses on Gaming performance execlusively. In which case, CPU plays a less important role. In the most well-known CPU benchmark: Cinebench and Geekbench, 9600K won 15% on single core performance and 100% on Multi core performance:

https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-intel_core_i5_9600k-889-vs-intel_core_i5_7600-668

 

[mj_]

In the most well-known CPU benchmark: Cinebench and Geekbench, 9600K won 15% on single core performance and 100% on Multi core performance.

That is GREAT news for everybody who runs Cinebench and Geekbench all day long. Everybody else is looking at a 15-20% increase of real-world performance instead

 

[chongsen]

That is GREAT news for everybody who runs Cinebench and Geekbench all day long. Everybody else is looking at a 15-20% increase of real-world performance instead

Leave Adobe suit alone, daily softwares like Chrome, Microsoft office and winter are all core thirsty. What do you do with single core performance? Watch photos on fancy iMac 5k screen whole day ?

 

[3SQ Machine]

Just getting back to the OP's original post, I would absolutely skip the quad core '17 and wait just a few weeks for an open box deal on a 2019 i5. 100% These open box deals will be pouring in to the big box warehouses nationwide as people bring back the "wrong gifts" in droves.

Are the specs "that" much better -- actually not really, but the value proposition of a new machine vs. a soon-to-be 3-year old machine is worth just another few weeks to find out.

 

[mj_]

Leave Adobe suit alone, daily softwares like Chrome, Microsoft office and winter are all core thirsty. What do you do with single core performance? Watch photos on fancy iMac 5k screen whole day ?

Chrome gobbles up RAM like there's no tomorrow and runs on the lowest of the low-end hardware available: ARM-based Chromebooks. And Microsoft Office will run on a toaster these days. In other words: those are two really bad example for CPU-intensive software. I am fairly certain that I won't type any faster in Word nor will I put in my numbers any faster in Excel or update my charts any more efficiently if my iMac had eight instead of just four cores.

Again: I am not disputing that in terms of raw CPU performance the new 9th gen CPUs are much faster than the previous 7th and 6th generation due to an increase in core count. However, as has always been the case (and this argument goes back to the days of "why is my 2 GHz Athlon not twice as fast as my 1 GHz Athlon?" back in the early 2000s) real-world performance depends on so much more than just raw CPU performance that these numbers should always be taken with a grain of salt. Especially if aforementioned increase can only be achieved under certain circumstances such as perfectly parallelized multi-threaded load.

 

[BigBoy2018]

That is GREAT news for everybody who runs Cinebench and Geekbench all day long. Everybody else is looking at a 15-20% increase of real-world performance instead

Thank you! Laughed out loud.

I’m so sick of people pulling up geekbench scores, which are higher because of turbo boost, but if you do anything intensive that lasts more than a couple minutes that turbo boost advantage completely evaporates.

P.S. I completely disagree with you with regard to ssd’s, which I think are absolutely transformational in terms of real world experience for ANY computer that currently has a spinning drive or fusion drive. But leaving that debate aside, I totally agree with you on the geekbench ‘mirage’.

 

[Roxy.music]

It's TB3 for sure. Don't know why Amazon change description, but still says "Type-C 10Gbps"

Picture:

View attachment 880954

Inside the box there are both USB and TB cables, maybe that can take to confusion

EDIT: I think what you guys mean. Properly said, this it is not a typical Thunderbolt enclosure, but USB C. Anyway, speeds of "up to" 10Gbps are more than enough for my needs. This enclosure + Sabrent SSD can reach speed of up to 3500Mbs on both Read and Write access, what still is a great leap over Fusion Drive

PS: Sorry about my english, sometimes some "lost in translation" issues can appear ?

That is not thunderbolt3 TB3 closer is a lot more expensive

And these are the cheaper ones
TREBLEET - Thunderbolt 3 SSD Enclosure

£130 UK NVME M.2 2280 40gb

4.2 out of 5 stars 27 ratings

Price:

£126.77

 

[jm31828]

I always find it amusing when poeple impose their own experience onto others and declare it the ultimate, the one and only truth. It has become something of a habit on forums worldwide to slander hard drives for their mere existence. According to the general crowd wisdom of the internet, if such a thing even exists, hard drives are the root of all evil and should have been outlawed a long time ago. It doesn't matter that whether or not one even notices the undeniable benefits of SSDs depends heavily on what kind of work they do.

Scrubbing 8k video all day while simultaneously exporting 1000+ photos from Lightroom and rendering three live video streams in the background at the same time? Get the fastest storage you can, because even a simple NVMe SSD is going to make your live living hell.

Writing texts in Word, crunching numbers in Excel, doing business in Salesforce, communicating with customers via email, Teams, Slack, etc.? You ain't gonna notice a thing. Nothing at all. Literally.

Please remember to differentiate. Some people are fine with Fusion Drives. Others are not. The fact that you require (or prefer) an SSD for your specific line of work does not mean others will benefit from it in the same way you do. Don't assume that because it is not acceptable for you it must be unacceptable for everyone else as well. It's not that simple

@jm31828 That is a great deal for a 2017 iMac. However, you will have to share what kind of work you are planning to do with it before we can tell you whether or not a hexa-core would be beneficial.

Just following up all these months later. . I got that 2017 iMac and upgraded to 16GB RAM as I noted I was going to do. It has been FANTASTIC- the best computer I have ever had. The 5K display is gorgeous, and to me this seems like a very fast machine. Boot up times are great, and I do not notice any lag in any apps I use. Granted I am not a power user- I use Skylum apps for photo editing which are very snappy on this machine, and otherwise use it for general internet browsing, and now since the pandemic began it is my work from home machine. It functions flawlessly for any of these tasks.