AMD M395X in new Retina iMac

[762999]

I honestly don't know whether I should laugh or cry
I also don't understand how making the iMac as thin as possible increases the "ultimate desktop experience". There was nothing wrong with the old form factor, which I had myself some years ago.

They are simply waiting that the internal gpu catch up and drop all dedicated cards in every model. It will happen overtime.

 

[Fried Chicken]

They are simply waiting that the internal gpu catch up and drop all dedicated cards in every model. It will happen overtime.

I don't think this will happen; It's a nice pipe dream, but at present the software is being developed to put less load on the CPU and transfer it to the GPU. I don't think we're going to see the end of dedicated graphics.

In fact look at the Mac Pro, it's evolved to include two dedicated graphics cards.

 

[steve62388]

I don't think this will happen; It's a nice pipe dream, but at present the software is being developed to put less load on the CPU and transfer it to the GPU. I don't think we're going to see the end of dedicated graphics.

In fact look at the Mac Pro, it's evolved to include two dedicated graphics cards.

There is no major conspiracy. It's about money, simple as that.

 

[filmak]

There is no major conspiracy. It's about money, simple as that.

... and GPU thermal dissipation, perhaps?

 

[762999]

I don't think this will happen; It's a nice pipe dream, but at present the software is being developed to put less load on the CPU and transfer it to the GPU. I don't think we're going to see the end of dedicated graphics.

In fact look at the Mac Pro, it's evolved to include two dedicated graphics cards.

Mac Pro yes, but I meant every iMac models, my bad for not mentionning. I'm sure that in 5 years the only one with dedicated cards will be the Mac Pro.

 

[EnesM]

Mac Pro yes, but I meant every iMac models, my bad for not mentionning. I'm sure that in 5 years the only one with dedicated cards will be the Mac Pro.

As long as there is a dedicated card in Macbook Pros (15") I think we're prety safe. If they one day decide to drop it from the 15" I think iMac will follow

 

[aevan]

I honestly don't know whether I should laugh or cry
I also don't understand how making the iMac as thin as possible increases the "ultimate desktop experience". There was nothing wrong with the old form factor, which I had myself some years ago.

Which old factor? The one in pre-2012 iMacs? A lot of people think that the new form factor is somehow worse for thermals, but when you look the space reserved for a gpu combined with better cooling, it is practically the same. In fact, the new design is more thermal efficient. The reason newer iMacs can get hotter is because of hotter GPUs, not because of the form factor (just compare it with the 2012 iMac that had the same factor but used the 680MX).

Even if you used a pre-2012 chasis, that form factor still wouldn't allow full desktop cards today. If you want to run cards that you want with cooling that you want, then you'd need like a 10cm thick iMac. And that's not what iMac's about. And the form factor is not what's preventing Apple from using mobile Nvidia cards that you all want, it's a mix of technological and business reasons (probably).

I just don't understand how you people don't get it: the iMac is NOT about gpu performance. It's like trying to race offroad with a limo. The idea behind an iMac is a sleek, beautiful, powerful machine that runs pro apps and is geared mostly towards the designers and artists that, actually, care how their desks look and how their computers feel. The iMac 21" looks great, feels great and runs Adobe CC apps great, it runs Autodesk apps great, it runs Corel apps great - do you see what I'm getting at?

To paraphrase Jobs - you're using them wrong.

 

[filmak]

Which old factor? The one in pre-2012 iMacs? A lot of people think that the new form factor is somehow worse for thermals, but when you look the space reserved for a gpu combined with better cooling, it is practically the same. In fact, the new design is more thermal efficient. The reason newer iMacs can get hotter is because of hotter GPUs, not because of the form factor (just compare it with the 2012 iMac that had the same factor but used the 680MX).

Even if you used a pre-2012 chasis, that form factor still wouldn't allow full desktop cards today. If you want to run cards that you want with cooling that you want, then you'd need like a 10cm thick iMac. And that's not what iMac's about. And the form factor is not what's preventing Apple from using mobile Nvidia cards that you all want, it's a mix of technological and business reasons (probably).

I just don't understand how you people don't get it: the iMac is NOT about gpu performance. It's like trying to race offroad with a limo. The idea behind an iMac is a sleek, beautiful, powerful machine that runs pro apps and is geared mostly towards the designers and artists that, actually, care how their desks look and how their computers feel. The iMac 21" looks great, feels great and runs Adobe CC apps great, it runs Autodesk apps great, it runs Corel apps great - do you see what I'm getting at?

To paraphrase Jobs - you're using them wrong.

Not to disagree with what you wrote but by design 105 C, or even 95 C GPU, temperatures are a bit high, while not using them wrong, and a burned GPU or heat damaged nearby screen area is not something I would call ultimate desktop experience or do you think that they have designed it like this so this experience could last for only a year?

In fact, the new design is more thermal efficient. The reason newer iMacs can get hotter is because of hotter GPUs,

Sorry but, by your words, the new design is not more thermal efficient because, simply, it is not capable to handle the hotter GPUs (and this is not user's fault) especially with only one fan installed. Old designs, as you may know, had more cooling capacity.

 

[aevan]

Sorry but, by your words, the new design is not more thermal efficient because, simply, it is not capable to handle the hotter GPUs (and this is not user's fault) especially with only one fan installed. Old designs, as you may know, had more cooling capacity.

Perhaps I wasn't clear - I meant, if you put current GPUs, like the mobile R9 Radeons in a pre-2012 chasis they would proabably hit the same temperatures as they do in the new, post 2011 iMacs. The "new design" is not the reason they run hot as a lot of people imply (by asking "why do I need to have such a thin iMac"), it's the iMac all-in-one design in general. And this design has benefits and tradeoffs. If I went to some PC gamer forum and started nagging how some large desktop monster has a bad design because I can't put the whole computer on my desk, people would laugh at me.

And when you look at it, it's only the gamers that have issues and are unhappy. Find one post here that complains about heat or GPU that is not gamer related. Like "wow, my iMac gets really hot while I do Photoshop", etc.

So all I'm saying - these iMacs were not designed with gaming in mind, they have awesome GPUs for what they are meant to do - productivity, art, coding, office work, music, design, photography, etc.

 

[Fl0r!an]

To paraphrase Jobs - you're using them wrong.

That comes actually very close to the core of the problem, just the other way around: Apple refuses to built the machines I want/need.

For me and others this is quite frustrating, since I'd gladly pay a (big) Apple-premium for getting the computer I want, but they're moving away from what I want with every new release a little further.

 

[AnTaR3s]

That comes actually very close to the core of the problem, just the other way around: Apple refuses to built the machines I want/need.

For me and others this is quite frustrating, since I'd gladly pay a (big) Apple-premium for getting the computer I want, but they're moving away from what I want with every new release a little further.

What is it exactly you are missing? Because anything except the GPU is rock-solid high-end. That problem will also be solved in a year or so with Thunderbolt 3 and external GPUs which are partially already available. Then you can just buy the latest Macbook Pro, forget the iMac, and get a decent 4k monitor and the GPU chassis.

 

[aevan]

That comes actually very close to the core of the problem, just the other way around: Apple refuses to built the machines I want/need.

For me and others this is quite frustrating, since I'd gladly pay a (big) Apple-premium for getting the computer I want, but they're moving away from what I want with every new release a little further.

I understand. But that's like saying "Porsche refuses to build the car I want/need. I would pay a lot of money for a Porsche truck." Ok, perhaps that's not a really good comparison, but still, it kinda demonstrates my point. If Apple is not building computers you need - look elsewhere (a PC). Now, you can say "Yes, but I want what is basically a PC that is built by Apple" - but that's wishful thinking. In a way, it almost makes me sad - Apple is one of the only companies that builds computers that I want (stylish, light, silent, enjoyable, well designed with premium screens and input devices). Almost everyone else builds high-end gaming PCs. You have MUCH more choice than me!

 

[filmak]

Perhaps I wasn't clear - I meant, if you put current GPUs, like the mobile R9 Radeons in a pre-2012 chasis they would proabably hit the same temperatures as they do in the new, post 2011 iMacs. The "new design" is not the reason they run hot as a lot of people imply (by asking "why do I need to have such a thin iMac"), it's the iMac all-in-one design in general. And this design has benefits and tradeoffs. If I went to some PC gamer forum and started nagging how some large desktop monster has a bad design because I can't put the whole computer on my desk, people would laugh at me.

And when you look at it, it's only the gamers that have issues and are unhappy. Find one post here that complains about heat or GPU that is not gamer related. Like "wow, my iMac gets really hot while I do Photoshop", etc.

So all I'm saying - these iMacs were not designed with gaming in mind, they have awesome GPUs for what they are meant to do - productivity, art, coding, office work, music, design, photography, etc.

Thank you for clarifying.
I fully understand your thoughts now and of course I agree with this perspective.
iMac can certainly run games but it's not its main purpose, mainly it's a system for design - office use with some headroom.
Unfortunately "pro" gamers will probably always have issues with these kind of all in one systems, of any brand.

 

[Fl0r!an]

I understand. But that's like saying "Porsche refuses to build the car I want/need. I would pay a lot of money for a Porsche truck."

Yep, the problem is that Apple builds the only computers that run OS X officially and 100% trouble free.

I'm not looking for a high end gaming machine, but a machine to get my work done and also some gaming. That's why I'm a Hackintosh users for more than 5 years now.

When I sold my last iMac, it was running perfectly fine, it just didn't play any recent games anymore. The same would happen in a few years with the current iMac, so I don't bother.

 

[aevan]

Yep, the problem is that Apple builds the only computers that run OS X officially and 100% trouble free.

I'm not looking for a high end gaming machine, but a machine to get my work done and also some gaming. That's why I'm a Hackintosh users for more than 5 years now.

When I sold my last iMac, it was running perfectly fine, it just didn't play any recent games anymore. The same would happen in a few years with the current iMac, so I don't bother.

But that's the crazy thing here - you actually CAN game on an iMac! I have an i5 M290X iMac 5K. And sometimes I play games in bootcamp on it - I played Witcher 3 on it on some very nice settings at 1080p, I played the latest Assassin's Creed, I played Dragon Age Inquisition on high settings at 1440p and I played Shadow of Mordor at high as well! They all looked great, worked at 40-60fps, and these are not lightweight games! And no, my iMac didn't explode out of heat, the fans came up a little and I couldn't hear them over the game audio.

I can only imagine that an M395X can run these games even better, and that it's really a great experience. So, I mean, it does do "some gaming" you mention! Just think about it - their GPUs are found on top of the line Alienware gaming laptops (and iMac versions often run at higher clock speeds). Are you saying you can't do "some gaming" on Alienware, khm, gaming laptops?!

It's just that people want THE BEST gaming performance in All-in-one machines. They want Nvidia 980M or newer and nothing else will do.

And it's even more ridiculous when you think how a PS4 now costs almost the same as the GPU upgrade on an iMac. Uncharted 4, anyone?

 

[MandiMac]

no, nvidia will release pretty soon 990M.
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-mobility-gtx-990m-q4-2015-faster-than-gtx-980/

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia...be-based-on-the-desktop-GTX-980.147698.0.html

I just dug around a little. See this link for example - it clearly says that the GTX 980 for laptops needs over 160 watts up to 200, so it is way beyond what the iMac is built for. Then again, here this article says that the max resolution is 3840x2160. Seems we have these reasons why Apple went with AMD this time.

 

[AsprineTm]

Here a M395X turned up in a laptop,
http://eu.alienwarearena.com/forums...0m-but-it-comes-with-the-amd-r9-m395x-instead

 

[Sirmausalot]

Which old factor? The one in pre-2012 iMacs? A lot of people think that the new form factor is somehow worse for thermals, but when you look the space reserved for a gpu combined with better cooling, it is practically the same. In fact, the new design is more thermal efficient. The reason newer iMacs can get hotter is because of hotter GPUs, not because of the form factor (just compare it with the 2012 iMac that had the same factor but used the 680MX).

Even if you used a pre-2012 chasis, that form factor still wouldn't allow full desktop cards today. If you want to run cards that you want with cooling that you want, then you'd need like a 10cm thick iMac. And that's not what iMac's about. And the form factor is not what's preventing Apple from using mobile Nvidia cards that you all want, it's a mix of technological and business reasons (probably).

I just don't understand how you people don't get it: the iMac is NOT about gpu performance. It's like trying to race offroad with a limo. The idea behind an iMac is a sleek, beautiful, powerful machine that runs pro apps and is geared mostly towards the designers and artists that, actually, care how their desks look and how their computers feel. The iMac 21" looks great, feels great and runs Adobe CC apps great, it runs Autodesk apps great, it runs Corel apps great - do you see what I'm getting at?

To paraphrase Jobs - you're using them wrong.

But I miss my optical drive but thank you for clear rebuttal of false argument that the All in one should have a desktop GPU. They have desktop caliber everything else, in fact many components better than one can get in any desktop configuration (current screen and flash memory are prime examples)

 

[theBigD23]

But that's the crazy thing here - you actually CAN game on an iMac! I have an i5 M290X iMac 5K. And sometimes I play games in bootcamp on it - I played Witcher 3 on it on some very nice settings at 1080p, I played the latest Assassin's Creed, I played Dragon Age Inquisition on high settings at 1440p and I played Shadow of Mordor at high as well! They all looked great, worked at 40-60fps, and these are not lightweight games! And no, my iMac didn't explode out of heat, the fans came up a little and I couldn't hear them over the game audio.

I can only imagine that an M395X can run these games even better, and that it's really a great experience. So, I mean, it does do "some gaming" you mention! Just think about it - their GPUs are found on top of the line Alienware gaming laptops (and iMac versions often run at higher clock speeds). Are you saying you can't do "some gaming" on Alienware, khm, gaming laptops?!

It's just that people want THE BEST gaming performance in All-in-one machines. They want Nvidia 980M or newer and nothing else will do.

And it's even more ridiculous when you think how a PS4 now costs almost the same as the GPU upgrade on an iMac. Uncharted 4, anyone?

All of your posts are on-point. This same discussions comes up everytime. iMacs are not gaming machines. Yes, you can play some games as you mentioned, but always hoping that iMacs will come with the top of the line GPU and then as always being disappointed, is getting old.

 

[Sirmausalot]

That comes actually very close to the core of the problem, just the other way around: Apple refuses to built the machines I want/need.

For me and others this is quite frustrating, since I'd gladly pay a (big) Apple-premium for getting the computer I want, but they're moving away from what I want with every new release a little further.

You would pay a premium, but in fact the user base needed to make it profitable to run a factory making the machines you want doesn't exist. You can't fault apple for not wanting to lose money catering to a niche market -- especially when in each release the GPUs they can use get stronger and stronger. I think it is why you see the Mac Pros languishing. It simply doesn't pay apple to put resources into maintaining them. They have to devote personnel to something that doesn't contribute to their bottom line. I think you will see thunderbolt 3 next October and you can pay that massive premium for an external GPU. But once you actually break it down, I bet you decide to put your money elsewhere.

 

[MandiMac]

I can only imagine that an M395X can run these games even better, and that it's really a great experience.

Just to throw it in here: The M295X in the last iMac could achieve 3.482 Teraflops while running at 850 MHz (factor 4.09647)
The M395X should achieve 2.961 Teraflops while running at 723 Mhz (factor 4.09543).

Assuming Apples 3.7 Teraflop number is correct, the new M395X should run at around 900 MHz (3.700/4.0959 - averaging both factors)

Just wondering if there is a new architecture under all this, last year there was a tremendous difference between M290X and M295X.
This year it seems the M395 and the M395X differ around 256 shaders and 70 MHz, right? Here is a GPU-Z screenie of ninja2000s M395.

 

[dark_skies]

And when you look at it, it's only the gamers that have issues and are unhappy. Find one post here that complains about heat or GPU that is not gamer related. Like "wow, my iMac gets really hot while I do Photoshop", etc..

I'll jump in and disagree with this point. People doing some significant video editing work were encountering the now-familiar problem of iMac gpus heating up, the machine throttling back, with a loss in performance. I suppose you could say they should move to the Mac Pro, but of course that hasn't been updated in a long time. The iMac, at least for single-core and even some low-core-count multicore applications is the only Mac that is keeping current with recent Intel hardware.

I'm with Fl0r!an on this: I have lots of "serious" work that I think the iMac 5K will be perfect (or nearly so) for. I'd also like to do a little gaming (X-Plane). Rumor is the 5K will do this ... but I'd rather not to have to worry about the Mac overheating if I do so - a louder fan or some such would be a better thing. Apple's "aerodynamic" iMac is constraining cooling. I really wish the new release had at least built in some more sophisticated cooling in the form of additional fans. Apple clearly has fan technology and sound-vs-blade design down, with rather elaborate multi-zone multi-fan cooling going back to old PowerMac machines in the past. But clearly they didn't want to put in the effort to do that this time around.

I'm a Mac Pro candidate in the future, but I'll still want the iMac for that screen. C'mon apple, spend a little of that $$ fortune on Mac hardware, too. After all, you bet the company on the iPhone, using proceeds from Macs. A little reverse cash flow would help many of us immensely.

 

[762999]

That comes actually very close to the core of the problem, just the other way around: Apple refuses to built the machines I want/need.

For me and others this is quite frustrating, since I'd gladly pay a (big) Apple-premium for getting the computer I want, but they're moving away from what I want with every new release a little further.

+1

I was thinking about getting a Skylake iMac but I don't like the price that goes with the configuration I want. I was targeting the loaded iMac (32gb, 512GBssd, and 395x) but it goes over 4600$ CDN + (15% taxes). I don't require a slim computer but I also have an i7 4790k + GTX680 (2012 gpu) and I paid around 1000$ for it. I will keep my macbookpro but I moved my Adobe lightroom back to the PC and won't look back.

 

[filmak]

+1

I was thinking about getting a Skylake iMac but I don't like the price that goes with the configuration I want. I was targeting the loaded iMac (32gb, 512GBssd, and 395x) but it goes over 4600$ CDN + (15% taxes). I don't require a slim computer but I also have an i7 4790k + GTX680 (2012 gpu) and I paid around 1000$ for it. I will keep my macbookpro but I moved my Adobe lightroom back to the PC and won't look back.

If you can work comfortably with windows it's a pretty sensible choice, from an economical stand point.
Also have in mind that the high end iMacs, in general, were always more expensive than bare hardware PCs and nowadays Apple is going the opposite route by raising up the prices (nMP, iMacs etc).

 

[Max108]

The first of the M395Xs are landing:

Any 27" Late 2015 iMac SSD Benchmarks?