Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD M395X in new Retina iMac
- Thread starter MandiMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://www.dell.com/en-ca/shop/productdetails/alienware-15-r2
I guess 1 of 4 configurations being AMD isn't bad. Also, all the top dog configurations are all Nvidia.
Since AMD is looking like 3dfx more and more everyday, only Apple will be writing AMD graphics drivers in 5 years.
It's understandable, because NVIDIA takes the crown when it comes to Full HD gaming. On higher resolutions, the differences get noticeably smaller and sometimes even favor the AMD graphics. And 2.299 for the M395X config without a screen beyond 1080p is pretty telling, if you ask me.
Noticeably smaller? I run a r9 290x that runs everything in highest settings minus AA in 4k Win 10. That includes New games and demanding games like the Metro Redux (Around 45-60 fps). It defeats the 970 and alot/most of the time defeats the 980. The main reason is they have fast ram, while the Nvidia 970 has that 3.5 gb vram ********.
You guys act like this is new or something. How long have you been building pcs? Every 6 months-couple of years Nvidia and ATI/AMD switch dominant places. It's that simple.
TBH, AMD has had some power hungry hot cards lately, and the r9 3xx series was a stupid ****ing rebadge, but the ATI Nano shows that they are back in the game. Expect the next batch to put them on top.
Zellio, I completely understand where you are coming from. But you are talking desktop, we are talking mobile here...
R9 Nano is indeed impressive. Competitive performance, power consumption, and heat to anything nvidia has to offer. Too bad it's a $650 video card. The R9 390 is pretty much dominating the GTX 970 right and beating some of the high end nvidia cards at higher resolutions due to its 8GB of VRAM. Bring on a $300-$350 based on R9 Nano with 8GB of HBM and AMD will dominate.
AMD has been slacking in the mobile space though, for sure. AMDs best mobile GPUs aren't even touching the 980M and nvidia has already put a full desktop GTX 980 in laptops. AMD needs to an R9 Nano based Mobile GPU pronto.
That site is just as useless as GPUBoss, nothing but repeating and speculating spec sheets. Get some real benchmarks and we'll talk.
Sure, but the problem with AMD was that during the 200 series, everyone complained that their cards are too hot and draw too much power, which meant that there's no chance of an efficient mobile card. Now with the nano, AMD has shown that they can make a card that is low power and fast. We'll see what they can do.
My NVidia GTX 680MX overclocked runs BF4 at 1440p everything on Ultra, AA off at 60FPS (vsync limited).
NVidia are owning AMD currently in the GPU market, and intel is owning AMD in the CPU market.
I think it's really unfortunate; we need competition to keep things moving and right now it appears as if things are slowing down.
Yup, they will surely use the R9 Nano architecture in some way for their next mobile refresh and desktop
Nope, because Apple didn't use the 723 MHz in the M295X before the M395X - it used 850. So we will be in for even higher clocks in this next version, not lower.
Maybe, don't be so sure.
1. The AMD listed specs state the same speed for both, albeit at the lower 723. Given all details are the same this does not look like a new chip, more like a rebrand. I would say the chances of the 395 running at 723 or 850 are greater than any higher value because of 2. below.
2. The teardown of the new iMac https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/2015-imac-27-retina-5k-teardown-pictures.1928726/ appears to show that it is using the exact same cooling system as the late 2014. The 2014 runs hot (I have one). The M295X GPU never runs at 850Mhz for more than 30 seconds or so, it always clocks down to around 750/723. I would be surprised if the 395 somehow managed to overcome these limitations with what looks like absolutely no change in the iMac or GPU design.
Apple should have never advertised the M295X @ 850Mhz. That is it's boost speed which can only be sustained for very short periods. A more honest approach would have been to quote it's standard speed of 723Mhz with boost as a separate figure.
This is only partially correct, in the M295X the reason the boost doesn't "boost" all the time is more related to the TDP (Watt absorbed) and really in some few situations (when is the Temp. activating the thermal protection triggering imperceptible downclocking), so if the M395X can yes run cooler, but performance wise, is still bounded to the TDP so the new GPU will likely runs like the M295X, maybe 5-10% more (if we are lucky) due to the revised architecture.
Wut? Not sure if you're trolling, confused or trying to be clever. That's the GPU RAM. Yes I'm aware RAM produces heat and that might be the point you're trying to make (but failing because you're being deliberately obtuse). OWC didn't state which GPU was in their teardown, some models have 2Gb.
I thought that The point was obvious which is the amount of thermal paste on GPU chips, but, I guess the yellow Vram indicators confused you somehow. I should've cropped it without Vrams.
Anyway, the first image belongs to m290x and the second one belongs to m390. (OWC stated here: http://blog.macsales.com/wp-content/gallery/imac-27-5k-late-2015/iMac27inch-5k-late2015-48.jpg).
So, I think Apple is generous with thermal paste after m295x heat issue.
Your first pic is from the iFixit teardown and the thermal paste has obviously been cleaned off, so that doesn't really tell us anything. Besides that, too much thermal paste is as bad as too little.
I really hope a review of the noise comes in soon, would like to know how silent it runs compare to the previous version. Also I still don't know if I can use the display in windows at 1440p, its a huge deal for me. For many web work I still need 1440p rather than just the 5K :/
I had a top-of-the-line i7 2012 iMac with the GTX 680MX, and there's no way it hit a constant 60fps at 1440p in BF4 set to Ultra, even with AA off. Just... no chance. I think I ran that game at maybe medium-to-high settings at 1080p to hit a SOLID 60fps.