Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

4God said:
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?
Click to expand...

According to Barefeats:

To drive the extra pixels, you need a more muscular GPU. Apple has provided the Radeon R9 M290X (2G) and M295X (4G) options.

Keep in mind that this is a mobile GPU. It will not provide the same performance as a desktop R9 290X or R9 295X -- both of which use the "Hawaii" chipset. The iMac mobile version uses the "Tonga/Amethyst" chipset comparable to the desktop version of the R9 275. However, expect the M295X to run OpenGL intensive apps faster than the GTX 780M in the best non-Retina iMac and equal to a single FirePro D700 in the 'late 2013' Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

http://barefeats.com/imac2014b.html

However, an R9 280X seems equivalent to a single D700 (i know because i'm about to buy one for my cMP), not a 275X... however i assume BareFeats know best! Maybe they were just talking about OpenGL performance.

Cheers

Ed
 
Pretty cool. I might pick up one of these when they get refreshed with Skylake around next autumn. But realistically, how easy is it to upgrade a Mac Pro? Say I buy a base model. Two or three years after purchase I want to upgrade to a 6 or 8 core processor, maybe upgrade the graphics. I know RAM is easy to upgrade, but 1. Do you have to buy a special type of Haswell chip that is certified for Mac? And 2. What about the graphics card? Is it more cost effective to sell an old iMac every 3 years and get another or to upgrade a Mac Pro after three years and then sell it after six? I have experience builiding PCs back in the day. Thanks.
 
Larry-K said:
The good news is they'll have to update the MacPro now, or look like idiots.
Click to expand...

not necessarily.

The problem with the Mac Pro is that it is based on Server class CPU's. which have generally been a generation behind their consumer oriented brethren.

The new iMac's are using the latest, and fastest CPU's Intel has ever released.

the Mac Pro's are based on the latest Xeon Server CPU's which aren't generally the fastest. There is nothing Apple can do for the Mac Pro until Intel releases their next Xeons or, re-engineers the Mac pro again to use Consumer level components (Haswell I5's)

Being that the Mac pro's are using Xeon CPU's for their ability to run hotter, for longer periods of time, theirs not really the Apples to Apples comparison between CPU's since the usage scenarios are different.
 
Only would think on investing on this if it supported 5-year Apple Care. Radeon graphics in a small case = problem with solderings.
 
There shouldn't even be a quad-core Mac Pro. The $3,000 base model should be a 6-core.
 
longofest said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Here is something that I have not seen addressed anywhere:

The maxed out 2014 iMac is ~$3600. It would have an AMD Radeon R9 M295X with 4GB

The 2013 iMac would have an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M with 4GB

The 2014 has 4x the number of pixels to push around. Is the 2014 GPU really 4x as powerful as the Nvidia? I doubt it!

Let's see a comparison of game / simulation frames per second. My hunch is that the 2014 would be hard pressed to do *as well* as the 2013.. it's 4x the pixels! There may be a saving grace here and there (with all those extra pixels, you can crank back on anti-aliasing, for one thing)
 
LordVic said:
not necessarily.

The problem with the Mac Pro is that it is based on Server class CPU's. which have generally been a generation behind their consumer oriented brethren.

The new iMac's are using the latest, and fastest CPU's Intel has ever released.

the Mac Pro's are based on the latest Xeon Server CPU's which aren't generally the fastest. There is nothing Apple can do for the Mac Pro until Intel releases their next Xeons or, re-engineers the Mac pro again to use Consumer level components (Haswell I5's)

Being that the Mac pro's are using Xeon CPU's for their ability to run hotter, for longer periods of time, theirs not really the Apples to Apples comparison between CPU's since the usage scenarios are different.
Click to expand...

Yep. The Mac Pro is suitable for day-long jobs while the iMac is suitable for running jobs that take seconds or minutes.
 
4God said:
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?
Click to expand...

I am interested in this as well. I do occasionally game (WoW) and wonder how 295x stacks up against D700. Especially when it comes to having 2 monitors: nMP 2 4ks, and iMac 5k + regular TB

Update: Ignore, looks like someone already responded.
 
javajoint said:
Exactly.

Here is something that I have not seen addressed anywhere:

The maxed out 2014 iMac is ~$3600. It would have an AMD Radeon R9 M295X with 4GB

The 2013 iMac would have an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M with 4GB

The 2014 has 4x the number of pixels to push around. Is the 2014 GPU really 4x as powerful as the Nvidia? I doubt it!

Let's see a comparison of game / simulation frames per second. My hunch is that the 2014 would be hard pressed to do *as well* as the 2013.. it's 4x the pixels! There may be a saving grace here and there (with all those extra pixels, you can crank back on anti-aliasing, for one thing)
Click to expand...

Lets be honest though. the iMac, even though it's a nice one isn't really a gaming computer. With this significant upgrade to the resolution, I highly doubt that Apple has engineered it to push games at those resolutiosn either.

they put in a fine GPU, but it's more intended to push desktop 3d application and the like. Just not gaming
 
riggles said:
There shouldn't even be a quad-core Mac Pro. The $3,000 base model should be a 6-core.
Click to expand...

Spot on for that observation. Made even more hard hitting when the first reviews came out identifying that higher end iMacs were faster than the entry level MPs.
 
LordVic said:
not necessarily.

The problem with the Mac Pro is that it is based on Server class CPU's. which have generally been a generation behind their consumer oriented brethren.

The new iMac's are using the latest, and fastest CPU's Intel has ever released.

the Mac Pro's are based on the latest Xeon Server CPU's which aren't generally the fastest. There is nothing Apple can do for the Mac Pro until Intel releases their next Xeons or, re-engineers the Mac pro again to use Consumer level components (Haswell I5's)

Being that the Mac pro's are using Xeon CPU's for their ability to run hotter, for longer periods of time, theirs not really the Apples to Apples comparison between CPU's since the usage scenarios are different.
Click to expand...

That's a good point about the heat issues. Geekbench doesn't run long enough to run into any serious thermal issues.

Though one point of clarification: Thanks to broadwell delays, Intel is actual on the same generation for desktop and server CPUs. Both are now Haswell. Also, server and desktop broadwell CPUs will also probably hit at roughly the same time. Though Skylake desktop CPUs might be available soon after Broadwell Desktop CPUs.

So my theory is that broadwell desktop CPUs will probably be skipped entirely by apple. Apple just doesn't refresh its lines faster than about a year anyway, and if Skylake is coming up in nearly a year.....well.....
 
Didn't want to add the 2012 Mac Mini into the list? The 2.6 i7 comes in at 12,693, while the 2.3 i7 is 11,693. I've got the latter and it was a lot of bang for the buck.

BTW, with all the complaining about the new mini, I'd like to interject that it does allow configuration of a fusion drive with the low end model, which wasn't possible before. Real world experience with that configuration would probably be very snappy for most users. I'm not saying I don't think it was a dumb idea; just trying to introduce some perspective on it.

On the flip side, I've tried to configure the new Mini in multiple ways and I keep winding up with a $1,000 machine and scratching my head thinking that for that money I should have an i7 option.
 
I think the most amazing thing to consider is that, in GeekBench, the lower end mac pro is only 5x faster than the iPhone 6. It truly is crazy how much power we have in our pockets now.
 
This makes quite clear why the mini is not quad and no upgradable ram anymore...

All in all a quad mini with discrete graphics will be as good as a Mac Pro for 80% of the pro users aiming at the basic pro
 
javajoint said:
The 2014 has 4x the number of pixels to push around. Is the 2014 GPU really 4x as powerful as the Nvidia? I doubt it!
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be. Pushing pixels is very easy. It takes like 1/10th of the GPU's memory bandwidth to push the pixels to the screen, even at that resolution.
 
wallysb01 said:
That's a good point about the heat issues. Geekbench doesn't run long enough to run into any serious thermal issues.

Though one point of clarification: Thanks to broadwell delays, Intel is actual on the same generation for desktop and server CPUs. Both are now Haswell. Also, server and desktop broadwell CPUs will also probably hit at roughly the same time. Though Skylake desktop CPUs might be available soon after Broadwell Desktop CPUs.

So my theory is that broadwell desktop CPUs will probably be skipped entirely by apple. Apple just doesn't refresh its lines faster than about a year anyway, and if Skylake is coming up in nearly a year.....well.....
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware (i'm a little behind, was travelling for a while), didn't realize intel got their latest Haswell based Xeon's out.

guessing though that Apple hasn't done their 6month refresh yet on the Pro's to go to that yet
 
I priced a retina iMac with maxed out CPU, memory, and GPU, plus a 1TB flash storage upgrade.

$4399.

I want it. I could make it happen. I could sell 500 shares of AAPL and buy the computer with the long term gain, after taxes.

But I'm busy with work that doesn't require that kind of power. And I've spent a lot on Apple products this year. I can wait for the next iteration. I'll keep the money invested.
 
This is good news for anyone trying to decide between low end Mac Pro and iMac 5k.

Looks like I chose wisely for once.

----------
doelcm82 said:
I priced a retina iMac with maxed out CPU, memory, and GPU, plus a 1TB flash storage upgrade.

$4399.

I want it. I could make it happen. I could sell 500 shares of AAPL and buy the computer with the long term gain, after taxes.

But I'm busy with work that doesn't require that kind of power. And I've spent a lot on Apple products this year. I can wait for the next iteration. I'll keep the money invested.
Click to expand...

Your stock value will only go up while your Mac value will only go down. So the old adage about buy the computer only if you need it now applies more than ever.
 
Modano said:
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.
Click to expand...

A Ciniebench score would be very nice: http://www.maxon.net/products/cinebench/overview.html

If you can, at 1080p and 5K (won't be massive at 5K but still the best score in the world). Do 4K or others if you want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back