High-End Retina 5K iMac Benchmarked Faster Than Low-End Mac Pro

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Oct 21, 2014.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Yesterday, Primate Labs highlighted some Geekbench 3 benchmarking results for the new 3.5 GHz 27-inch Retina 5K iMac, unsurprisingly showing the machine performing better than slower-clocked Core i5 chips in non-Retina models but below that of high-end Core i7 chips also available in the machines since their late 2013 introduction.

    Primate Labs' John Poole noted that once benchmarks for the high-end Retina 5K iMac with Intel's 4.0 GHz Core i7-4790K chip started appearing, they could show the new iMac outperforming the low-end Mac Pro, and that is indeed the case as revealed today and highlighted in an updated version of Poole's blog post from yesterday.

    The 4.0 GHz Retina 5K iMac clocks in with a score of 4438 on the single-core 64-bit benchmarking test, while multi-core testing achieves a score of 16407. Across the two tests, the new high-end Retina iMac scores 11-13 percent higher than the fastest non-Retina model due to the faster processor included on the Retina model.

    [​IMG]
    Compared to the low-end Mac Pro, which runs on a quad-core 3.7 GHz Xeon E5-1620 v2, the high-end Retina iMac clocks in over 13 percent higher on multi-core testing, although it is unsurprisingly outclassed by higher-level Mac Pro models carrying processors with more cores.

    [​IMG]
    Both Retina iMac processor options outperform all Mac Pro models on single-core benchmarks, but this is unsurprising as the Xeon processors used in the Mac Pro sacrifice single-core clock speed for many more cores and other benefits that enhance performance for professional-level applications that can take advantage of the multiple cores.

    Article Link: High-End Retina 5K iMac Benchmarked Faster Than Low-End Mac Pro
     
  2. Michaelgtrusa, Oct 21, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2014

    Michaelgtrusa macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
  3. farewelwilliams macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2014
  4. ValSalva macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
  5. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #5
    Admittedly, after all the buzzkill surrounding the Mac Mini, it's nice having some good news around here.
     
  6. esposimi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    #7
    Since they are a -K SKU I wonder if there is a mod which can be used to overclock.
     
  7. iSee macrumors 68040

    iSee

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
  8. Modano macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    New Orleans
    #9
    I just got mine! It's a fully maxed out retina iMac (just 16 gigs of RAM though). Here's the benchmark:

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/1062136

    I'm heading back to work but glad to answer any questions. The display is simply breathtaking and it seems fast as hell so far.
     
  9. jameskachan macrumors member

    jameskachan

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #10
    Graphics and real world performance tests needed.

    Who cares how fast processors are these days.
    With all that screen res, all the time, I think the graphics performance and real world rendering and photoshop tests are more key.
     
  10. macnerd77 macrumors 6502

    macnerd77

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Northern California / Bay Area
    #11
    You took the words right out of my mouth.
     
  11. Serban Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    #12
    Please give us some benchm for the GPU 295x
     
  12. RawBert macrumors 68000

    RawBert

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
  13. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #14
    It was to be expected. The Xeons used in the mac pro are a generation behind the mainstream desktop cpus used in the imac, and Apple always goes with the cheapest cpu options on the base mac pro in spite of its starting price. The imac's cpus are also sometimes marginally more expensive, by $5-30 recommended customer pricing. I would have been more surprised if it didn't match the base mac pro.

    Photoshop tests have very little to do with gpu performance. The only reason anyone thinks that is due to misleading benchmarks that are completely decoupled from actual usage patterns. Assuming adequate ram and/or fast scratch space, you won't see a difference in performance between this and the mac pro that is specific to a graphics app like that. There are a few that take advantage of them in more key areas, but it's rarely what people think. 3D apps are a bit different, as they have to do a lot of vector product math on point positions and intersections, as well as a lot more tessellation work that is increasingly offloaded to the gpu. Much of the time it makes little sense for the others to go that route due to the inevitable code branching that occurs.
     
  14. maclove4life macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #15
    i need to see a new version of mac pro beat the crap out of iMac like punching bag...pop pop pop 10 hit combo!
     
  15. Michael Scrip macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Location:
    NC
    #16
    Be careful with heat, though.

    Unfortunately you can't put one of these in an iMac:

    [​IMG]

    I'm sure Apple has done their homework on adequate heat dissipation in such a small chassis.

    But I wouldn't push it too far.
     
  16. 4God macrumors 68020

    4God

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Location:
    My Mac
    #17
    Really want to know how the GPU performs...Is the 295x like having a single D700 in the nMP? Would that be similar to two D300's? Rendering/Playback of 4K in FCPX?
     
  17. Larry-K macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    #18
    The good news is they'll have to update the MacPro now, or look like idiots.
     
  18. Sharky II macrumors 6502a

    Sharky II

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #19
    They should just kill off the quad core Mac Pro to differentiate the line... it's really quite a crazy machine to buy.
     
  19. Anitramane macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    #20
    What's funny is that a quad haswell mini would beat the lew end mac pro in cpu
     
  20. mikeboss macrumors 65816

    mikeboss

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    switzerland
    #21
    maxed out means 1.0 TB SSD, right? could you tell me please with how many lanes the PCIe SSD is operating (2 or 4)? thnx! or you could just run a benchmark on the SSD...
     
  21. longofest Editor emeritus

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #22
    There is a bit more to a Mac Pro now-adays than the CPU... Namely, dual high-end GPUs and high end PCI-e flash drives. I'd imagine those benchmarks still have the Mac Pro quite ahead of the game.
     
  22. esposimi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    #23
    Man that would be the day.
     
  23. t0mat0 macrumors 603

    t0mat0

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Home
    #24
    How does it handle 5k video, or multiple 1080p / 2k/4k ?

    I understand gaming is years out at that level (you need 1-2 grand for the GPU cards alone on a PC) - but can video be done smoothly?
     

Share This Page

163 October 21, 2014