Apple's New Retina iMacs Offer Slight Performance Boost Over Non-Retina iMacs

[Ethosik]

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.

That does not mean they are horrible gaming machines. So a GTX 680 is a horrible graphics card because other graphics cards can out perform it? No. It is still a pretty good card.

I agree that if you want to play Crysis at 5K on max settings, no mac or really custom build PC will work for you.

But to simply say they are horrible at gaming is just ridiculous.

NOTHING will be able to play max 5K. Not even triple SLI setups. So EVERYTHING is horrible for gaming then?

 

[wigby]

It's marketing, not cold hard facts.

"Timing controller" means nothing until hands-on usage proves how effective it really is.

Yes and no. There is a custom controller in there which is probably one of a kind in the world. Only Apple can leverage that many pixels at 5k because they control the all-in-one iMac. That's not marketing. That's technical control.

Now does it work perfectly? I'm getting mine in a few days so I will be scrutinizing it for myself. But many people complained about the first retina iPad which I had but I never personally had a big problem with its speed or lack thereof.

So I'm aware of the real world performance vs. marketing but it is also a subjective thing too for many users.

 

[xmichaelp]

ridiculous.

the new imac is so useless. now its not even possible to play games with the highest specced imac. simple impossible to play native.

despite the fact that all slimmed down imac displays are yellowish and have very serious ghosting.

iMac isn't a gaming machine. And you DON'T NEED TO PLAY AT 5K RESOLUTION.

That display would bring any graphics card to it's knees for gaming.

 

[smetvid]

I think everybody missed the point of the article. It was to show how the 2014 i5 version stacks up compared to the 2013 i5 version. The article even mentions a small spec bump which means its sole purpose was to discuss the i5 performance levels. The graphs showed the 2013 i7 benchmarks just for comparison reasons.

I'm sure they will test the i7 version once they can actually get their hands on one to test. Remember the i7 is a built to order option so it will take a lot longer for testers to get their hands on them.

Since the i5 is what comes standard when you walk into an Apple store it makes sense to test that version since that is what a lot of people will end up buying. I'm still baffled that Apple considers an i7 processor a build to order only option.

 

[Wahlstrm]

This is the same i7 as the retina iMac, right?

Nice performance if that's the one

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/406238

 

[Bubba Satori]

Um, is there any system that allows you to play games native at that resolution?

Any i7 2600K Sandy Bridge or better PC with a dual SLI or Crossfire and newer generation GPU.
Frame rates are slow with higher settings.
I think you need of 4GB memory on each GPU.
Google 4k gaming for the details.
Looking forward to some hackintosh sites doing some tests.

 

[cppguy]

Google 4k gaming for the details.

4K is not even the same ballpark as 5K. 4K is 8.8 megapixels. 5K is 14.7 megapixels. Yes, you might not be able to see the difference right away, but the GPU power required is ridiculously high.

 

[groovyd]

why are we comparing the last year's i7 and this year's i5? was this written to deceive the gullible and make no sense?

 

[koruki]

Given the requirements to power the 5K display, I'd say that even a slight performance bump over the non-retina models is a bonus at this point.

This a CPU test or a GPU test? I'm confused. I got my retina MBP a few months ago, its been the buggiest MBP I've had in all the years of owning them. I've had the pre unibody 15, 15 uni, 17 uni. This new one is maxed out and when the wake sleep issues started, I was told I had too much ram. ....

 

[manu chao]

From the looks of things lately you'll be keeping them crossed for a long time.

Which complicates a lot of every-day tasks.

 

[RedBanana]

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..... <snip>

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..... <snip>

In that respect, a Mac isn't horrible for gaming at all..... <snip>

These are the same points I made, a bit more convoluted..... I explained it along with specific examples of what gamers choose and why. Yes, Macs can play games, but they aren't games machines or designed to be, that was the jist of it. And I was answering someones question/statement on the topic so yes there was "really a question".

 

[RedBanana]

That does not mean they are horrible gaming machines. So a GTX 680 is a horrible graphics card because other graphics cards can out perform it? No. It is still a pretty good card.

I didn't say it was, no "horrible" words used.

I agree that if you want to play Crysis at 5K on max settings, no mac or really custom build PC will work for you.

I didn't say anything about 5K either.

I was actually answering someone stating that people say to him Macs are not good for gaming, I was explaining what they mean or more where they are coming from in their minds.

But in answer to your statement, no 5K displays exist for PC's yet (yes, Dell soon). No gamer would want a 5K display for a while yet. If you want to know what you need for 4K gaming look here.

But to simply say they are horrible at gaming is just ridiculous.

Again, I didn't, I didn't even use the word. I was replying and pointing out on the subject of buying a machine specifically for gaming; As with the "gamers" who are very likely the people who say Macs aren't good for games.

Macs are superb machines, an all round machine, they are not designed for "gamers" but do play games pretty well, just not AAA titles at 60fps or 120fps. But again, you wouldn't buy a Mac just like you wouldn't buy a Surface Pro 3, or any other "non game" spec machine to play games on.

NOTHING will be able to play max 5K. Not even triple SLI setups. So EVERYTHING is horrible for gaming then?

Jeez Louise! I didn't mention 5K or anything like that. Read and comprehend before replying.

 

[randian]

I think the most significant 2015 performance boost will be Skylake in Q2, not Broadwell, assuming Intel ships it on time (it will already be more than a year late by that point).

 

[SaSaSushi]

So the i7 out performs the i5? Who would have thought?

why are we comparing the last year's i7 and this year's i5? was this written to deceive the gullible and make no sense?

No, actually while the non-retina i7 was on their list of benchmarks, they were, in fact, comparing the retina to the previous generation i5. Thus the title of the article:

Apple's New Retina iMacs Offer Slight Performance Boost Over Non-Retina iMacs.

I would guess that the reason they didn't post benchmarks of the CTO i7 retina model is that Primate Labs has yet to take delivery of one and not some grand conspiracy.

 

[ljocampo]

Who will buy this iMac 5k Retina? Me.

Why? Because the performance will be tremendous compared to my early (8,1) 2009 maxed-out 20” iMac! Many people, like me, hold on to our maxed-out desktops a couple of years past the AppleCare. My iMac still works great, but it needs retirement for Yosemite.

Some people in this thread forget people like me. We buy our iMacs desktops for longevity. I have a 1st Gen rMBP, 1st Gen iPad Air, and 5s iPhone for on the road business. The iMac is home base. Since 1984 I've never owned a Windows machine and probably never will.

For this creative professional, a maxed-out 27” iMac 5K Retina with that price, performance, and display sounds great. I’m old enough to remember how much Macs used to cost. How easy it is to forget how we got to this place.

 

[samiznaetekto]

"Slight Performance Boost"?! Is this a new wording for "It's F the same as the old model"?

 

[Ethosik]

I didn't say it was, no "horrible" words used.



I didn't say anything about 5K either.

I was actually answering someone stating that people say to him Macs are not good for gaming, I was explaining what they mean or more where they are coming from in their minds.

But in answer to your statement, no 5K displays exist for PC's yet (yes, Dell soon). No gamer would want a 5K display for a while yet. If you want to know what you need for 4K gaming look here.



Again, I didn't, I didn't even use the word. I was replying and pointing out on the subject of buying a machine specifically for gaming; As with the "gamers" who are very likely the people who say Macs aren't good for games.

Macs are superb machines, an all round machine, they are not designed for "gamers" but do play games pretty well, just not AAA titles at 60fps or 120fps. But again, you wouldn't buy a Mac just like you wouldn't buy a Surface Pro 3, or any other "non game" spec machine to play games on.



Jeez Louise! I didn't mention 5K or anything like that. Read and comprehend before replying.

I said "Macs are not horrible at gaming". You said "Honestly, they do". Therefore you were saying they do suck at gaming. Yes I comprehended it just fine.

 

[TBR]

almost time...

Looking forward to getting full benchmarks for the i7 and the BTO graphics card, if all goes well I'll finally pull the trigger on a new Mac after running a Revision 1 (2006) Macbook for the last 8 years.

 

[Kirill123]

Retina iMac 64-bit Performance

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/201...gn=Feed:+primatelabsblog+(Primate+Labs+Blog)

 

[xbjllb]

Yes, but is it faster than my mid-2010 2.93 12-core?

That's the question.

 

[spetzdude]

you can easily play games at 1440p like before. So what's wrong?
at 2880p you will not be able to play games at max, for the next 4-5 years

Would this still fill the screen? im looking to purchase the imac retina with the upgraded CPU and GPU. Will i be fine playing all modern games at with decent settings?

 

[Jcknows0]

Still crossing my fingers for just a 5K Cinema Display. If I do get an iMac I'd wait for Broadwell instead

Then you'll be waiting for DP 1.3 in Skylake which is 18 months-2 years out.

 

[TechZeke]

What's the point of comparing 2014 i5 iMac to 2013 i7? 2014 i7 iMac is a lot faster then 2013 i7 iMac. Would at least make sense to include stats for the 2014 i7 iMac as well. People will tend to miss the part that it is the i5 only and start thinking the retina iMac is slower then the 2013 iMacs.

Yes, but the fact that this is an i5 is impressive in itself. That i5 is a beast. It's keeping up with the base Xeon Mac Pro. The i7 must be a monster at 4Ghz.