Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

27" iMac late 2015 i5 3.3 & AMD m395 benchmarks

Juliovalverde said:
That's weird, also bluetooth mouse ? when I'll get mine I'll try too
Click to expand...

I didn't try bluetooth, I had a usb keyboard and mouse attached

Jamesk811 said:
Hope someone can help me here, now that we have some benchmarks on the m395 (not X), I was wondering how this compares with the gtx680mx I have in my late 2012 iMac. I am satisfied with this card for the types of games I play and want to know how they compare to make my decision of whether I stick with the m395 or go for the m395x.
Click to expand...

This is more powerful than the 680mx stock, but with a decent OC I would imagine the 680mx would be on par. I do miss my 2012 680mx machine, why did I sell it :(

AppleHater said:
How much improvements are we expecting jumping from 380 to 390 to 395?
Click to expand...

Nobody knows yet, nobody with a 380 or 390 has come forward, I wish they would, I would love to see a GPUz screenshot
 
What you miss from your 2012 model? I mean 2015 model is not a huge improvement but it is faster and efficient, and yours the m395 doesn't make so much noise moreover it is noticeable better than 2014 and 2013 gpu model, am I wrong?
 
Agreed, it is quieter but does run hot. But it is 3 years on and the performance has hardly improved. The display does make it worthwhile I suppose
 
ninja2000 said:
I didn't try bluetooth, I had a usb keyboard and mouse attached


This is more powerful than the 680mx stock, but with a decent OC I would imagine the 680mx would be on par. I do miss my 2012 680mx machine, why did I sell it :(
Click to expand...

In that case I might get the m395 if its better than the 680mx as I'm happy with my 680mx. However, the m395 needs to drive the 5k screen, does this make my current setup better?

ninja2000 said:
Agreed, it is quieter but does run hot. But it is 3 years on and the performance has hardly improved. The display does make it worthwhile I suppose
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly that's the main reason I'm upgrading, for that amazing 5k screen. In saying that though, I can get the 4K 21.5" screen and still be happy with a 2tb fusion drive, what's the top of the line gpu like on the 21.5"?? Enough to run some basic games like Counter strike source and Rome total war etc?
 
how is gaming with retina screens? will i have the typical "blurry" effect while gaming at non-native resolution?
 
Last edited:
Ninja2000, Please could you run Cinebench from OS X for the M395 (so that we have our first point of direct comparison)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Juliovalverde
Max108 said:
Ninja2000, Please could you run Cinebench from OS X for the M395 (so that we have our first point of direct comparison)?
Click to expand...
Of course. I will do it later. Just put bootcamp on the m290x so will now compare my m395
 
Winter Charm said:
Thank you so much! that M395X is a beast! :D I think I'll order my mac soon :D
Click to expand...

The GPU is certainly not bad, I am just a little disappointed that 3 years development have only brought a 10-15% increase over the 2012 models. Still good enough for most purposes though :)
 
AnTaR3s said:
The GPU is certainly not bad, I am just a little disappointed that 3 years development have only brought a 10-15% increase over the 2012 models. Still good enough for most purposes though :)
Click to expand...

Which one's from 2012? I thought the best iMac graphics system of 2012 was the 680M…

EDIT: Or are you referring to previous benchmarks that aren't listed in this test?
 
SBruv said:
Which one's from 2012? I thought the best iMac graphics system of 2012 was the 680M…

EDIT: Or are you referring to previous benchmarks that aren't listed in this test?
Click to expand...

Yes, the 680mx. This is not listed in the tests, but looking at various other benchmarks, the gain should be of the order of 10-15% compared to the m395x (apart from the 4GB VRAM)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlifTheUnseen
AnTaR3s said:
Yes, the 680mx. This is not listed in the tests, but looking at various other benchmarks, the gain should be of the order of 10-15% compared to the m395x (apart from the 4GB VRAM)
Click to expand...

If you're right, that's truly dismal. :(
 
AnTaR3s said:
Yes, the 680mx. This is not listed in the tests, but looking at various other benchmarks, the gain should be of the order of 10-15% compared to the m395x (apart from the 4GB VRAM)
Click to expand...
They've got the 780m. Isn't that enough?
 
How does the 395 (without the X) compare to a 680mx from 2012? Just wondering if the upgrade from my 2012 is worth it? Thanks
 
cinebench in osx as requested
cinebench395osx copy.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: petsk, AlifTheUnseen, Max108 and 1 other person
SBruv said:
This is very weird. Here's my late 2012 GTX680MX running the same test in OS X under OpenGL! The results seem to suggest that it's significantly better than the 395, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
Click to expand...

If you need to beat (or alas, match) the GTX680MX, try the m395X on for size.
Were you using antialiasing?
 
Last edited:
jerwin said:
If you need to beat (or alas, match) the GTX680MX, try the m395X on for size.
Also, you can toggle antialiasing every which way, and it won't show up in the score card-- which is annoying.
Click to expand...

I've got the 395X arriving on Friday, but going by this post from another thread, it's equally if not more feeble. None of this makes sense…

nottoohigh said:
OK had a window of time available and here are the Unigine benchmarks at medium, high and ultra:

MEDIUM

dubLgTn.png


HIGH

nNryRgC.png


ULTRA

ZeW8tbw.png


FWIW: there was no change at all in fan speed (steady at 1200rpm) during all 3 benchmark runs, even though GPU temp did go up to 98 degrees at the highest.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back