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.
Apple's New Retina iMacs Offer Slight Performance Boost Over Non-Retina iMacs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think that goes for pretty much any $2,500 piece of electronics. You would be an idiot to buy it for minor usage (or maybe just really rich...).
I don't think anyone is expecting to play games at 5k. I play games as one of the many things that I plan to use the system for but the screen size is for other tasks. I wouldn't want to use the full screen even if I could but that may just be me.
I really wish people would stop saying macs make for horrible gaming computers.
Guess what? My Windows PC with a GTX 680 cannot play every game on max at 1440p. Just think how well I will be able to play at 5K.
Guys, an intel is an intel, nvidia is a nvidia, AMD is AMD.
Macs are just as good at gaming as Windows PCs that are within the same price range from vendors like Dell, HP, Lenovo, ...
OS X is where the problem is. Direct X is still much better in terms of performance than Open GL.
Running the same game on a MAC through OS X gives me less performance than bootcamp.
A mac + windows = very good gaming machine. Just because it is a mac, does not mean it is suddenly more horrible at gaming than any other computer.
If the game performs horrible on OS X, that is not really OS X at fault. I have seen ports of windows games perform VERY WELL and ports perform so horrible. On OS X I would get 30FPS on some games. On the same computer using windows, I could get 100FPS +. Sometimes the port is just horrible. Sometimes it is because of OS X.
So please, stop with the macs are horrible at gaming. You know what? A $250 Dell laptop is horrible at gaming too, macs actually perform better than those!
You cannot say Macs are horrible at gaming and compare it to a GTX 680 or a Titan. They are not the same.
So according to you guys here, my WINDOWS PC is HORRIBLE at gaming with a GTX 680 because it cannot play most recent games at even 1440p at maximum settings? I think you guys need to take a look at your priorities. I am very happy playing at a different resolution/quality. I do not need to triple SLI or get those expensive titans.
Guess what? My Windows PC with a GTX 680 cannot play every game on max at 1440p. Just think how well I will be able to play at 5K.
Guys, an intel is an intel, nvidia is a nvidia, AMD is AMD.
Macs are just as good at gaming as Windows PCs that are within the same price range from vendors like Dell, HP, Lenovo, ...
OS X is where the problem is. Direct X is still much better in terms of performance than Open GL.
Running the same game on a MAC through OS X gives me less performance than bootcamp.
A mac + windows = very good gaming machine. Just because it is a mac, does not mean it is suddenly more horrible at gaming than any other computer.
If the game performs horrible on OS X, that is not really OS X at fault. I have seen ports of windows games perform VERY WELL and ports perform so horrible. On OS X I would get 30FPS on some games. On the same computer using windows, I could get 100FPS +. Sometimes the port is just horrible. Sometimes it is because of OS X.
So please, stop with the macs are horrible at gaming. You know what? A $250 Dell laptop is horrible at gaming too, macs actually perform better than those!
You cannot say Macs are horrible at gaming and compare it to a GTX 680 or a Titan. They are not the same.
So according to you guys here, my WINDOWS PC is HORRIBLE at gaming with a GTX 680 because it cannot play most recent games at even 1440p at maximum settings? I think you guys need to take a look at your priorities. I am very happy playing at a different resolution/quality. I do not need to triple SLI or get those expensive titans.
Who do I give my $400 to? Has he already got the 4K TV or do i have to wait for him to rob the store?
I dont get it why ppl complain that you can not play any games on a iMac. I play BF3 and BF4 on medium setttings maxed resolution. And that is a i5 maxed out iMac late 2011. And its doing that great. And yes, you need to install windows to get acces to the real games. I am not talking about stupid old ports to OSX. Games that are 'done' for years now and get a second life on OSX to gain some extra bucks
What's ridiculous is that you'd expect to play ANY modern game with ANY hardware at 5K native resolution...
Well said that man. I just ordered a 5k iMac as I use my desktops for professional purposes and upgrade every 3 years, I was waiting for this.
I can guarantee the fact I'll be doubling my RAM capacity and getting significantly better graphics power will certainly suffice for my current needs, no complaints from me about the spec. Having a screen like this will also finally allow me to steadily transition over to 4k production too.
So much whining about playing games. Go and build a PC for that and grab a Mac Mini for general use. Why on Earth use a Mac for hardcore gaming?
Speak for yourself. I use Photoshop until my eyes bleed most days. But that doesn't mean that I don't want to fire up Starcraft 2 every once and awhile to relax and have fun.
Totally fair enough, casual games are all good.. right? I get the feeling all these people banging on about the performance for gaming are expecting bleeding edge hardware from a machine geared towards professional creatives.
Work professionals use iMacs ....... Lol.... Heard of the mac pros? Or did you buy an iMac therefore it's a professional machine all the sudden lol...
Mate, the iMac is an all purpose machine . Your fooling yourself if you believe it's for professionals.
Seriously why would those idiots buy mac pros eh....
Um, thats wrong too. About 90% of professional offices that use Macs have iMacs. Pros haven't really been worth buying until this last rev. The performance vs price increase is not justified UNLESS you are working in Video Editing which still will have probably 10- 15 iMacs and 1-3 offices that hold Pros. And Video editing suites only make up for a fraction of design/advertising companies out there which is where the majority of sales go. iMacs are everywhere and dominate most of the creative professional fields I would bet at least 20 to 1 vs pros. They perform top notch and look great (screen and physical appearance) and get 99% of the work done.
Work professionals use iMacs ....... Lol.... Heard of the mac pros? Or did you buy an iMac therefore it's a professional machine all the sudden lol...
Mate, the iMac is an all purpose machine . Your fooling yourself if you believe it's for professionals.
Seriously why would those idiots buy mac pros eh....
Complete bollocks. I am a professional and until the 5k arrives I'll continue my professional work on my 2011 i7 iMac.
Honestly, they do, sure they "play games" and most games have Mac versions nowadays. But if you are looking to buy a machine to play games 100% of the day then you don't want a Mac. Mac's aren't for hardcore gamers. Apple don't cater for gamers.
If you want a notebook or a desktop for playing games, you can get many times the performance for the same price you would spend on any Mac of the same cost. The highest performing GPU in a MacBook Pro is the two year old Nvidia 750M.
The current notebooks for gaming are using the NVIDIA 980M which is more than twice the speed of the 880M of last year (also not in Macs) and twice again of the 750M (in Macs). And you can get such a gaming notebook for less than $1500, spend $2000 and you'll have latest mobile i7 quad processor, 3K displays in said notebook too (see here and here).
Compare those prices to a $2600 high spec 15" Macbook pro which is still using a 750M GPU, see what sort of frame rates you get with new games like Titanfall and Crysis 3, and you see why people say Mac's are not what you buy to play games on.
Work professionals use iMacs ....... Lol.... Heard of the mac pros? Or did you buy an iMac therefore it's a professional machine all the sudden lol...
Mate, the iMac is an all purpose machine . Your fooling yourself if you believe it's for professionals.
Seriously why would those idiots buy mac pros eh....
You are out of your mind.
Totally agree. This product feels like a "placeholder" that they wanted just to keep people talking everything apple. They seem to betaking a strong approach to imaging professionals like photographers and videographers because frankly, anyone in either of these professions are using macs and more and more people are getting into imaging every day. This 5K thing is a way to take a stronger foothold amongst those consumers (which I am apart of)
However, why o why would I ever want an i5 processor for doing my type of work. For a 5K screen that will display more color and depth then my work will every be viewed by anyone else?? Its ridiculous to think that a 27" i5 retina is going to make me any more productive then my current i7. Frankly I think it will be slightly worse when editing a 5K file with 50+ layers or editing hours of footage with full effects and animations. I just don't see it. So then who is this mac for? It seems too expensive for casual users and too much of a compromise for pros doesn't it?
Truth is in the middle somewhere .....
Macs for "hardcore gamers"? Well, no.... but was that ever really a question? I mean, if all your really care about doing with your computer is playing the latest games on it -- then you're going to demand things like the very latest graphics cards, and the ability to plug multiple cards in (with SLI support) and use their combined power on one display, for even more performance.
You're also going to pick a machine that comes with the operating system that the most games are written for, right? That would clearly, hands-down, be Windows.
That said .... I think *most* computer buyers are looking for a "jack of all trades" machine. If all they really ever do is play video games, a lot of them are better served with a console. (Just re-use an existing big screen TV and you don't even have to buy another monitor.... Wireless joystick controller comes with it out of the box. No worries about spyware or virus infections. The list goes on.) Most of the time though, the computer purchase is about everything from surfing the net to typing up papers to working with the occasional spreadsheet. With all the cameras built into cellphones these days, everyone's a "photographer" and wants a central place to edit and manage a photo library too.
In that respect, a Mac isn't horrible for gaming at all. As long as you select one with a dedicated GPU in it and not just the built in Intel graphics -- it will play most titles reasonably well. A few selected games even have native OS X versions so you don't have to boot into a Windows partition to play them. (I have a whole collection of favorites in Steam on my Mac that I play like that.)
Like someone else said .... people out there have a LOT of Windows laptops (Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.) with integrated graphics of some sort, or really outdated dedicated graphics chipsets, which are far worse at gaming than your typical iMac will be.
Macs for "hardcore gamers"? Well, no.... but was that ever really a question? I mean, if all your really care about doing with your computer is playing the latest games on it -- then you're going to demand things like the very latest graphics cards, and the ability to plug multiple cards in (with SLI support) and use their combined power on one display, for even more performance.
You're also going to pick a machine that comes with the operating system that the most games are written for, right? That would clearly, hands-down, be Windows.
That said .... I think *most* computer buyers are looking for a "jack of all trades" machine. If all they really ever do is play video games, a lot of them are better served with a console. (Just re-use an existing big screen TV and you don't even have to buy another monitor.... Wireless joystick controller comes with it out of the box. No worries about spyware or virus infections. The list goes on.) Most of the time though, the computer purchase is about everything from surfing the net to typing up papers to working with the occasional spreadsheet. With all the cameras built into cellphones these days, everyone's a "photographer" and wants a central place to edit and manage a photo library too.
In that respect, a Mac isn't horrible for gaming at all. As long as you select one with a dedicated GPU in it and not just the built in Intel graphics -- it will play most titles reasonably well. A few selected games even have native OS X versions so you don't have to boot into a Windows partition to play them. (I have a whole collection of favorites in Steam on my Mac that I play like that.)
Like someone else said .... people out there have a LOT of Windows laptops (Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.) with integrated graphics of some sort, or really outdated dedicated graphics chipsets, which are far worse at gaming than your typical iMac will be.
2013 actually dropped discrete graphics for impressive integrated graphics, but integrated was still slower. They were sometimes spun as comparable or faster, but people chose some very biased benchmarks that did not compare well with typical use (something that is often grossly misunderstood).
Do you not know why the internet was invented? It was to create a new, innovative way to complain.
I can't help but shake my head when I see the overall tone in some of these threads. People want to whine that it's too expensive, or that it can't play games, or that it's severely underpowered, blah, blah, blah.
1) "Too expensive." The 5K iMac is being offered for a fabulous price! Simply compare the cost to another computer and a 5K screen and see that you're saving at least a thousand dollars, perhaps more. Simply put, the 5K iMac is priced extremely low! And if you don't want to pay the prices for a 5K monitor, then you can easily buy a 2.5K iMac or a PC that will fit your needs.
2) "Can't play games." No prosumer machine in the world allows you to play games at 5K resolution with really fast frame rates. Shouldn't even be a factor in any discussion here. The 5K iMac will play games just as well as any other iMac has, if not better. If a high-end gaming experience is your forte, then you should probably invest in a high-end PC designed specifically for gaming.
3) "Severely underpowered." I seriously doubt that Apple will release a new product that stutters and is unusable. People complained about the first rMPB, but if you look closely, the complaints came from people that don't own one. Well let me tell you, I've owned a rMBP since the first day they came out and it's an incredible laptop! Best experience I've ever had. And I'm not just a casual user. I travel the world as a professional photographer and videographer, and my rMBP has been superb throughout all of my real-world usage. Now, getting back to the new 5K iMac...yes, I too am waiting to see some real-world reports and benchmarks on how the 5K iMac performs with the 295X GPU. I'm pretty certain all will be ok, but like many others, I'm waiting to see. But to say that it's severely underpowered now is a statement based on ignorance because this GPU has not been publicly tested yet and none of us have any idea how good or bad it will perform. One should wait until some results come out before making a claim.
The purpose of my lengthy post is to point out to others that all is not lost. The 5K iMac may very well be the best machine to date for the specs and price. But, we all need to give it a chance and see versus whining and complaining about something we know nothing about.
Bryan
1) "Too expensive." The 5K iMac is being offered for a fabulous price! Simply compare the cost to another computer and a 5K screen and see that you're saving at least a thousand dollars, perhaps more. Simply put, the 5K iMac is priced extremely low! And if you don't want to pay the prices for a 5K monitor, then you can easily buy a 2.5K iMac or a PC that will fit your needs.
2) "Can't play games." No prosumer machine in the world allows you to play games at 5K resolution with really fast frame rates. Shouldn't even be a factor in any discussion here. The 5K iMac will play games just as well as any other iMac has, if not better. If a high-end gaming experience is your forte, then you should probably invest in a high-end PC designed specifically for gaming.
3) "Severely underpowered." I seriously doubt that Apple will release a new product that stutters and is unusable. People complained about the first rMPB, but if you look closely, the complaints came from people that don't own one. Well let me tell you, I've owned a rMBP since the first day they came out and it's an incredible laptop! Best experience I've ever had. And I'm not just a casual user. I travel the world as a professional photographer and videographer, and my rMBP has been superb throughout all of my real-world usage. Now, getting back to the new 5K iMac...yes, I too am waiting to see some real-world reports and benchmarks on how the 5K iMac performs with the 295X GPU. I'm pretty certain all will be ok, but like many others, I'm waiting to see. But to say that it's severely underpowered now is a statement based on ignorance because this GPU has not been publicly tested yet and none of us have any idea how good or bad it will perform. One should wait until some results come out before making a claim.
The purpose of my lengthy post is to point out to others that all is not lost. The 5K iMac may very well be the best machine to date for the specs and price. But, we all need to give it a chance and see versus whining and complaining about something we know nothing about.
Bryan
An iMac is enough for a lot of programmers, photographers, musicians.
I'm not too crazy about combining the display with the rest of the computer, but currently that's the only way to get 5K 60Hz.
I've had every display size mentioned at one point or another, and 27" is my favorite. To each his own.
... Now if only they'd make a 4.45" iPhone.
Reality Check: iPad Air 2's will reign as
's fastest tablet for exactly one year ... You will have to wait one year for to announce a faster iPhone . MacBooks ~8 months , Mac Pro ~1-2 years , Mac Minis a 2-3 years wait only to get worse performance .The chart doesn't tell the full story as there is no iMac Retina i7 4GHz present.
Geekbench 3, Multi-core 64-bit, results are typically around 15K for the 4790K; I'd expect around the same for iMac Retina processor upgrade.
A better comparison, from the charts perspective, would be the i5 4670 @3.4GHz (iMac i5 2013), and the i5 4690 3.5Gz (iMac i5 Retina). Both scores are very close. No real surprises here.
For me the real story will be in GPU benchmarks. How will R9 M295X perform with the 5K display? What are the displays colour accuracies - ∆E< 2? Smooth or laggy screen performance? Etc.
Geekbench 3, Multi-core 64-bit, results are typically around 15K for the 4790K; I'd expect around the same for iMac Retina processor upgrade.
A better comparison, from the charts perspective, would be the i5 4670 @3.4GHz (iMac i5 2013), and the i5 4690 3.5Gz (iMac i5 Retina). Both scores are very close. No real surprises here.
For me the real story will be in GPU benchmarks. How will R9 M295X perform with the 5K display? What are the displays colour accuracies - ∆E< 2? Smooth or laggy screen performance? Etc.