Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iMac' started by Darajavahus, Jun 8, 2017.
4:04, 4:17, 4:20
Your screen needs to be the same size
Plus fusiondrive vs very high speed ssd.
Would the 8Gb vs 16Gb make any difference?
Also i5 to i7
So... then not so much with the "lot worse than"?
breaking news, computer with 60% less pixels to render wins benchmark tests.
Sarcastic & correctly spoken!
So it would score 1827 if the screen size was the same as the other.
Why would the #pixels matter for the second and third tests, which are run at fixed resolution on all devices?
The card still has to render 60% more pixels, it doesn't just leave them empty. It's not comparing a 1080p 15" screen to a 1080p 27" screen. It's just not apples for apples and not a fair comparison.
Size? More like resolution.
These screens particular resolution doesn't matter when the benchmarks are made at fixed resolution, like duh...
No, it scales the content to the size of the screen. The resolution is the same, so the same number of pixels are being pushed by each card, so it is an exact apple to apple comparison.
Now, that the remainder of the specs are not the same, THAT may affect the overall result.
The i7 have hyperthreading but a lot lower clock speeds, in this case I don't think that would add up to that big difference. Also there is so much yt videos showing in most cases hyperthreading or more ram after 8GB don't make too noticeable differences.
Yes, would i5 v 7 make a difference?
Hard to believe the 5 series is a less powerful chip, although I am sure we can debate what constitutes "powerful" and whether benchmarks are the best indicator of power.
--- Post Merged, Jun 9, 2017 ---
Whoops...should probably read to the end before I post....
--- Post Merged, Jun 9, 2017 ---
You need to compare apples to apples (no pun intended). The differences are such that its not conclusive.
Actually, comments in this thread tell me that people who are buying Apple computers know zero about computers at all, and what they do.
Yeah, Radeon Pro 560 is slower in the same resolution in the same Game, than last years Macbook Pro because of Fusion Drive, or 8 vs 16 GB of RAM.
I have never laughed so much in my life. Thank you guys.
The tests are not GPU bound, but CPU bound. Why would you test RP 560 and 460 if you have two different CPUs, which one of them is having much lower throughput. Its even funnier when you will look at comparison with iMac with i5 and AMD Radeon M390. The same framerate, and both GPUs have the same or similar 1024/1280 GCN cores, in core count. Core i5 in 2017 even in 1080p is 90% of the time at 95% load on all cores. Whereas when you will look at Core i7 it still has room. Ryzen CPUs, their reviews and analysis have opened up minds people about this.
Its not Radeon Pro which is slower. It is the CPU that is not able to push enough data to GPU, to feed it.
I second this post.
CPU here seems to create a bottleneck for RP 560. Especially @ 1080p and below.
Fusion Drive and RAM's effect is negligible imho.
Though @1440p and especially @ 4K it will be GPUs that create the bottleneck.
So if a 3.4ghz i5 is a bottleneck for the 560 already, then what about an i5 with the 580 in the 27 inch? In other threads everyone is suggesting that the i7 is not needed at all except for a few specific use cases but reading the above it would seem that the i7 would help maximise the potential of the 580.
On the other hand there are plenty of systems like the Dell Alienware that use an i3 with a 1060 type card, so how come there is no bottleneck there.
Alittle confusing to be honest!
The problem is with testing methodology. They used very old software that relies in the first on CPU performance to test GPU performance. What is more, they have tested in low resolution, medium Settings for example Tomb Raider, which also is old game, and heavily relies on CPU performance.
What they should have done is crank up the resolution to 1080p, run the games on highest detail settings and THEN compare GPU performance. That is how you create GPU bottleneck.
Everywhere when you will have to play with high detail, high resolution settings you will be running into GPU bottleneck. Core i5 in higher details/high resolutions will not be bottlenecking RP 580, because the GPU will not have resources to be extracted otherwise.
This whole situation just shows two things. The complete and utter incompetence of the reviewers of the iMac, and complete lack of knowledge of users, who jump into conclusions about the hardware without even understanding what is going on.
Compare the imac with i7 and 560 with mbp that has 560 and still...
They matter if the final image still needs to go though the compositor, which it kind of does. High Sierra comes with a optimisation they call "Direct to Display" which avoids this, but its not on yet on 10.12
Wow so much mis-information in this thread.
An i5 desktop cpu isn't going to bottleneck a 560 ffs. What are we benchmarking at 1024x768?
We need people to actually benchmark and monitor clocks to see what is going on. Is the 560 throttling? Is it a driver problem/same drivers?
I have a 460 and if anyone want to compare with a 560 I can help them run through some benchmarks to see what is going on
Pff, this thread became really confusing really fast. But yeah, lets wait for the 560 MacBook Pro.