Alright guys THIS is the video you’ve all been waiting weeks for, the comparison between
our 8-core 2020 5K iMac for $2300 and the 10-core $3300 model, and as you saw in the
title, we are recommending that most people DO NOT upgrade to the 10-core i9 CPU for an
extra $400.
Now there are a small number of people who should upgrade, and I’ll mention who in
just a few minutes as we get deeper into our suite of performance tests, like video editing
in Final Cut Pro X, programming with Xcode, music production with Logic Pro X, photo editing
with Photoshop and Lightroom, graphics rendering with blender, gaming performance and more.
Before we get started, I want to show you the full specs of each machine, and one of
the major differences is that the 8-core gets the base 5500 XT graphics card, and the 10-core
gets the 5700 XT with double the VRAM.
We also paid $100 for the optional 10gb ethernet port on the high-end model so if you don’t
need that, the price goes down to $3450, and by the way, those total prices you’re seeing
include RAM that we bought from Amazon and upgraded ourselves for a significant discount
instead of paying Apple’s incredibly high RAM prices.
So we got 32gigs for the 8-core iMac for $120 and 64gigs for the 10-core for just $240 off
Amazon and we’ll have links to the RAM we chose down in the description so you can do
the same, and if this video ends up helping you out, consider buying our Apple product
mask to help support this channel.
Now let’s get into the performance testing starting with the Geekbench 5 benchmark, and
in the single-core test, there was barely any difference at all, but in the multi-core
test, the 10-core i9 model was around 9% more powerful in terms of raw performance.
Now in the Cinebench R20 stress test, which actually factors in the cooling systems, the
10-core model was around 12% more powerful, which is honestly less of a difference than
I was expecting since you’re paying $400 for that upgrade.
But the most interesting thing is that during that test, the 8-core iMac was actually able
to get a higher spike in wattage, and once the temps stabilized after multiple runs of
Cinebench R20, it was running at a lower clock speed of 4.0GHz because it has to keep those
extra cores cool.
And this is gonna be very important for some of the real-world tests that I’ll show you
in just a minute, but first, I want to go through the graphics and gaming tests.
In Geekbench 5’s metal graphics test, the 5700 XT graphics in the higher-end model was
about 38% more powerful than the 5500 XT, which is definitely a more impressive difference
than we saw with the 10-core CPU.
And then we ran Unigine’s Heaven benchmark on the extreme preset to test the difference
in real-world gaming performance, and to our surprise, the higher-end model got around
50% more FPS, which is an incredible difference for gamers and definitely worth the upgrade
price of $500.
Now as a cherry on top, the 5700 XT also gets double the VRAM, 16GB instead of only 8GB
on the 5500XT, and not only that, but the Bandwidth speed is higher as well, 384GB/s
instead of 224 on the base graphics, which is gonna help a lot for some of the real-world
graphics tests I’m about to show you guys in a minute.
Now before we get into video editing with Final Cut Pro X, I want to cover some things
like photo editing, Logic Pro X and Xcode pro gramming.
We ran the Pugetbench Photoshop benchmark and we were surprised to see that the high-end
model scored only around 5% higher, even with that 10-core CPU and the extra RAM, so this
shows that graphics designers should be fine with the lower-end model.
Moving onto Lightroom Classic photo editing, we exported 500 RAW 42MP images and the higher-end
iMac finished exactly 2 minutes quicker, which isn’t much, but it’s definitely something.
Now here’s the kicker, in a previous video, we actually tested the differences in how
much RAM you buy, and while using the lower-end 8-core iMac, we ran the same test with 64GB
of RAM and it finished in just 22 minutes and 10 seconds, so this not only shows how
important RAM is for photo editing in Lightroom, but it shows that the 8-core is actually faster
than the 10-core if both of them are using 64GB of RAM, and that’s because it runs
at higher clock speeds like we saw in the Cinebench R20 test.
Now we also tested building 1:1 previews, and here, the 10-core iMac was 4 seconds faster
than the 8-core assuming both systems have 64GB of RAM.
Now moving onto the Max Tech Xcode benchmark, which you can download using the link in the
description, the 10-core iMac finished the build only 12 seconds faster than the 8-core.
We think this is due to the fact that on the 10-core model, Apple is limiting the maximum
wattage and clock speeds to help keep the temps down, while the 8-core feels like it’s
unlocked and free to get huge spikes in wattage, which has been very impressive so far!
And now moving onto the Logic Pro X benchmark, which tests how many tracks the system can
handle before overloading, the 8-core was able to handle 123 tracks, and the 10-core
was able to handle a slightly higher 131 tracks, which is once again… pretty underwhelming.
And honestly, most Logic Pro X users won’t be maxing out their systems with as many tracks
as possible, so the 8-core should really be fine for most people, and by the way, 64gigs
of RAM with the 8-core helped it handle 125 tracks instead of 123.
Now before we get started with video editing, we have one more test to run, and that’s
3D rendering with Blender’s bmw and classroom tests, which are actually using the graphics
to render instead of the CPU.
In this test, the higher-end model finished almost 40% faster than the base model, which
is a pretty huge difference, and that performance gain is due to the 5700 XT’s extra raw performance
and core count.
Now let’s finally get into video editing with Final Cut Pro X, and prepare yourself
because these results are insane.
In the Bruce X 5K benchmark, the higher-end model finished the test just one second faster
than the lower-end model.
Then moving onto our 1 minute HEVC stabilization test, the difference was even smaller, with
the high-end model finishing just half a second faster.
The reason for that is because both systems are using the same exact Quicksync encoders
and same exact T2 chip to encode the HEVC footage in this test, so the extra raw performance
doesn’t really help.
We then exported a 5 minute 4K h.264 clip, and once again, the higher-end model only
finished 1 second faster, because once again, the hardware accelerators are taking care
of the encoding, so it’s not at all limited by graphics power.
So because we didn’t see a difference there, we exported one of our very own Max Tech videos,
which is 12 minutes long and comes packed with a bunch of effects and charts that we
use on a daily basis, and here, the high-end model did finish 23 seconds faster, and we
think it’s because of the much faster 384GB/s VRAM bandwidth that is able to more quickly
render the effects.
Now moving onto our 5 minute HEVC export test, the high-end model finished just 12 seconds
faster which is honestly not much of a difference for paying an extra $500, and that’s because
HEVC encoding is currently taken care of by the T2 chip which is identical on both machines.
What the last couple of h.264 and HEVC tests show us is that if you’re doing basic 4K
editing, there’s really no difference between the two, but as you add more effects like
we did in our 12 minute long Max tech video, the higher-end 5700 XT model will start to
perform a bit faster, so keep that in mind if you’re adding a ton of effects.
Now getting into Canon’s new eOS R5 footage, Max did a dedicated video on his channel for
editing R5 and Sony a7s3 footage, so definitely check that out after this video, but I do
have a couple of tests to show off right now.
In terms of transcoding a 30 minute 4K 10-bit clip, and they basically finished in the same
amount of time, with neither of the machines using all of their CPU power, so for this
test, the 10-core is basically pointless.
Now instead of transcoding, we exported a 5 minute version of this eOS R5 footage, and
you guys are about to have your minds blown.. The 10-core iMac was slower than the 8-core
iMac by about 8 seconds, and the only reason we could think of is the 8-core running at
higher clock speeds.
So if you want to see more info on that, watch Max’s dedicated video.
Now moving onto Canon C200 RAW footage, Final Cut Pro just got updated to support Metal-based
rendering for this type of footage, but it’s currently broken because Canon still hasn’t
updated their plugin, so we used to old version of Final Cut to run our 5 minute export test,
and here, the high-end iMac was almost 2 minutes faster, but the important thing to notice
is that the 8-core CPU is still not a limitation, the extra gains are from the faster 5700 XT
graphics.
And as far as timeline smoothness, the high-end iMac can play it back at a perfect 60 frames
per second compared to around 54 FPS on the low-end, so the graphics is a great investment
here.
And now moving onto R3D RAW footage, now using the new Final Cut Pro version and R3D’s
newly released plugin, we ran our 5 minute 4.5K export and the high-end iMac was over
25% faster in this test, but not because of the 10-core CPU, mostly because of the faster
graphics, yet again.
And now exporting our 5 minute 8K clip, the high-end iMac was way faster, almost 50% faster
than the other iMac, which is very impressive.. And you might be thinking, there you go, that’s
the 10-core CPU finally shining, but you’re actually wrong.
Max tested before and after the new Final Cut Pro update, and the high-end iMac used
to export 4.5K at 91% CPU usage, but now it went down to only 12% of the CPU being used,
and for the 8K export, it went from 100% CPU usage to 12% CPU usage, with the graphics
actually being basically maxed out at 98% usage.
So this basically shows that in the past, R3D RAW footage would completely max out your
CPU and make the 10-core way worth it, but now, it’s mostly graphics based, so the
5700 XT is very worth it for anyone doing any type of RAW footage.
And as for the 8K playback test, the high-end iMac played it back at 19 FPS out of 24, compared
to only 12FPS on the lower-end iMac, so this crazy 8K footage is still being limited by
the best 5700 XT graphics option.
Alright guys so with all of those tests out of the way, we can safely say that the 10-core
CPU is simply not worth the extra $400, even for tasks that are purely processor based
like Xcode, Logic Pro, Photoshop and Lightroom Classic, which actually got slower with the
10-core CPU assuming both machines have 64GB of RAM.
Now that’s not to say that the 10-core is bad, it’s just that this year’s 8-core
i7 is incredibly powerful and it’s not being limited like the 10-core is.
And as far as all of the video editing tests, the high-end iMac was only faster because
of the better graphics card, and we know this for sure because the 8-core CPU was not being
maxed out in any of the tests, even RAW editing which used to max out the processor, and since
the 8-core was running at higher clock speeds, it could actually be better for video editing,
like we saw in the Canon eOS R5 test.
Now at the beginning of this video, I mentioned that the 10-core is actually worth it for
a small number of people, so let me explain.
If you’re the type of person who has too much money to even care about getting the
best bang for your buck, and you want squeeze out that extra 6 tracks in Logic Pro X, 12
seconds of build time in Xcode, or 4 seconds for building 1:1 previews in Lightroom Classic,
then sure, get the 10-core, but in my opinion, 100% of people should instead spend that $400
on either upgrading the graphics or something else like the storage.
And with that, hopefully this video helped you out, and if it did, check out our Apple
product merch down below to help support this channel, and click that circle above to subscribe
for our upcoming 5K iMac vs 2019 Mac Pro comparison video. And for Canon eOS R5 users, check out
Max’s dedicated video right over there. Thanks for watching and we’ll see you in
the next one!