High-End riMac Gaming Performance

[Mac32]

So how does the retina iMac display look in regular 1440p resolution (not retina), vs. a regular iMac in native 1440p? For modern games full retina display resolution is not realistic, so does the retina monitor get more blurry when playing in normal 1440p resolution (like other non-native resolutions)?
Thanks!

 

[Confusius]

So how does the retina iMac display look in regular 1440p resolution (not retina), vs. a regular iMac in native 1440p? For modern games full retina display resolution is not realistic, so does the retina monitor get more blurry when playing in normal 1440p resolution (like other non-native resolutions)?
Thanks!

Yes, that's really the million-dollar question here. Plus, is it worth the $250 to upgrade to the i7 chip if the most intensive use of the riMac is going to be gaming?

 

[w00tini]

So how does the retina iMac display look in regular 1440p resolution (not retina), vs. a regular iMac in native 1440p? For modern games full retina display resolution is not realistic, so does the retina monitor get more blurry when playing in normal 1440p resolution (like other non-native resolutions)?
Thanks!

theoretically, the smaller pixels should offset the traditional blur associated with down sizing to 1/2 of native.

 

[Mac32]

Yes, that's really the million-dollar question here. Plus, is it worth the $250 to upgrade to the i7 chip if the most intensive use of the riMac is going to be gaming?

I've seen plenty of benchmark tests with i5 vs i7, and the i7 will not offer any noticeable improvement in gaming, especially at 1440p with a mobile graphics chip. The i7 CPU might offer a more smooth response in certain demanding settings though, hard to say... Personally I would get the i7, because it is faster for other tasks (encoding for one).

EDIT: I was referring to hyperthreading in quadcore CPUs.

 

[Confusius]

I've seen plenty of benchmark tests with i5 vs i7, and the i7 will not offer any noticeable improvement in gaming, especially at 1440p with a mobile graphics chip. The i7 CPU might offer a more smooth response in certain demanding settings though, hard to say... Personally I would get the i7, because it is faster for other tasks (encoding for one).

Thank you!

 

[leenak]

Not that I think GW2 is the most graphically intense game but I tried a few minutes of it and... I will just say its nice

 

[akm3]

Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the testing session.

Thank you for posting these benchmarks!

 

[forg0t]

I've seen plenty of benchmark tests with i5 vs i7, and the i7 will not offer any noticeable improvement in gaming, especially at 1440p with a mobile graphics chip. The i7 CPU might offer a more smooth response in certain demanding settings though, hard to say... Personally I would get the i7, because it is faster for other tasks (encoding for one).

That is the case if they were both at 4.0 or 3.5 ghz. But they aren't. This i7 processor is clocked 12.5% higher than the i5. It'll make a difference here. Well worth the $250 this time around.

 

[Mac32]

That is the case if they were both at 4.0 or 3.5 ghz. But they aren't. This i7 processor is clocked 12.5% higher than the i5. It'll make a difference here. Well worth the $250 this time around.

Yes, that's a good point, I was thinking generally of the added benefit of hyperthreading and quadcore CPUs in games, which is minimal. Still don't think even the 0.5ghz difference will be very noticeable in games, when playing in high resolutions like 1440p with a mobile GPU. Possibly MMO games would benefit? I would still get the i7, because hyperthreading and higher clock speed is useful for other tasks - and why not get the best option when you are spending so much money on a shiny new iMac. I chose an i7 CPU for my late 2012 iMac...

TIP: If the i7 CPU gets really hot when gaming, one can turn off turbo boost in Bootcamp (Power Options: CPU max speed 99%), which reduces the CPU temperature under load with about 10 C.

 

[quagmire]

I've seen plenty of benchmark tests with i5 vs i7, and the i7 will not offer any noticeable improvement in gaming, especially at 1440p with a mobile graphics chip. The i7 CPU might offer a more smooth response in certain demanding settings though, hard to say... Personally I would get the i7, because it is faster for other tasks (encoding for one).

EDIT: I was referring to hyperthreading in quadcore CPUs.

Though the i7 is the 4790K which is unlocked. Now who knows how much thermal headroom the iMac's design has for overclocking, but the 4790K does offer overclocking potential at least in Windows.

 

[Etienne000]

Hi, here is the results i've got on the entry level iMac and the D500 Mac Pro.

Could someone do the same test on the 295m to compare them ?

Thanks

 

[theSeb]

It is not possible for anyone to compare, because you've used a custom preset. Therefore we don't know how you've set up AA, whether you've enabled Vsync etc etc etc.

Edit: I see that you've changed the screenshots, and we can now see the AA setting.

 

[leman]

I am about to order but play a lot of Eve Online...has anyone any experience running that on the new machine (with 295X).

5k benchmarks are really worthless. You need a custom PC with dual super high end cards like GTX980s before even thinking about 5k gaming 1440p benchmarks are probably the most useful for true gaming performance.

That is true, but I am fairly sure that M295X will run Eve in 5k without big problems Its not the most demanding game out there.

 

[Katamari12]

Has someone already tried playing The Sims 3 on the Retina iMac? Do you think it'll be playable in 5k?

 

[Etienne000]

It is not possible for anyone to compare, because you've used a custom preset. Therefore we don't know how you've set up AA, whether you've enabled Vsync etc etc etc.

Edit: I see that you've changed the screenshots, and we can now see the AA setting.

I did not change the pictures, just rehost them.

So if someone with the 295m iMac could make the same benchmark it would be nice.

Thanks !

 

[theSeb]

I did not change the pictures, just rehost them.

So if someone with the 295m iMac could make the same benchmark it would be nice.

Thanks !

I must have been blind because I did not see the 8xAA until your second picture started to show up. If you simply run in the ExtremeHD preset and not change anything, then we can compare to the M295X without waiting, because we already have those scores.

 

[Etienne000]

Did not change and don't know if it was an extreme HD stuff. It was in 1440P, 8xAA, Ultra settings (Did it to compare with what I already have).

----------

I must have been blind because I did not see the 8xAA until your second picture started to show up. If you simply run in the ExtremeHD preset and not change anything, then we can compare to the M295X without waiting, because we already have those scores.

Image

Image

If there is AA8X, why is the score higher than here ?

http://i.imgur.com/EO1YGy9.png

 

[theSeb]

Did not change and don't know if it was an extreme HD stuff. It was in 1440P, 8xAA, Ultra settings (Did it to compare with what I already have).

1440P 8xAA is not the ExtremeHD preset. I can see you didn't use the ExtremeHD setting, you have changed the resolution by yourself.

Change the preset to ExtremeHD. ExtremeHD is the setting we have all used to get an idea of what the performance is of the R9 M295X. The resolution for the extremehd preset is 1080p, but you only need to change the preset drop down

If there is AA8X, why is the score higher than here ?

http://i.imgur.com/EO1YGy9.png

That is self explanatory, based on the above

 

[newbish]

Hi, here is the results i've got on the entry level iMac and the D500 Mac Pro.

Could someone do the same test on the 295m to compare them ?

Thanks

attached is mine.. m295x i5 8GB. first is your custom preset, and second is extremeHD.

Custom Preset (System reso 2560x1440 8xAA)

ExtremeHD Preset

btw, the temperature of the GPU chip went up to as high as 103 degree CELSIUS. time to fry an egg while benchmarking?


edit: and who really cares about benchmarks? it's the games that you play that matters if you are looking into games..

here's my footage recorded from phone, borderlands the pre-sequel. Game was running at capped 60FPS, High (max i could set) settings 1440p. YouTube doesn't playback the video in 60FPS but you get the idea.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdwSuPiRSVY

 

[neilhouselander]

So Ninjas are real, kindly downloaded & tested EVE online. Here is his youtube:
http://youtu.be/Buh0_TKg5RQ?t=7s

 

[vir3l]

installed wow on bootcamp with win8.1 (4k Resolution).

here is what i found:
- 4k Resolution is not really different than 5k
- gaming on Windows (world of warcraft) is way better than on mac (no surprise), i get 50-90 fps with med/high Settings in Windows while playing wow... most of the time they're above 60 with full 4k, it's really awesome
- fan Speed is same under Windows (meaning around 2300-2500 rpm avg while gaming)
- fan Speed Management is better under Windows (it takes longer to get started but faster to throttle down)

 

[5iMacs]

for plain head to head M290X/M295X benchmarks (no bootcamp vs OS X, etc) this is the comparison I was waiting for:

http://www.barefeats.com/imac5k6.html

Completely credible in the areas where there are overlap with results posted by forum members, I think it's all you need to get a relative picture.

 

[WilliamG]

for plain head to head M290X/M295X benchmarks (no bootcamp vs OS X, etc) this is the comparison I was waiting for:

http://www.barefeats.com/imac5k6.html

Completely credible in the areas where there are overlap with results posted by forum members, I think it's all you need to get a relative picture.

Yep there it is. The high-end Retina iMac is pretty disappointing in terms of gaming performance a year on from the 780M. Shame. Will have mine Monday, but am already a little bummed out...

 

[inhalexhale1]

Yep there it is. The high-end Retina iMac is pretty disappointing in terms of gaming performance a year on from the 780M. Shame. Will have mine Monday, but am already a little bummed out...

Same. I was hoping they would match the big increase in resolution with an equally impressive jump in GPU (was hoping Apple would find a way to go dual-mGPU!). The m295x is definately an upgrade over the 780m, but not the same jump as the 980m gtx would have been, or even a 970m it would seem.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-R9-M295X.129043.0.html

 

[jbuk1]

I've run unigine valley and heaven under both Windows 8.1 boot camp and OS X and 3dMark if anyone is interested.

My results are here, http://retrop.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/new-27-imac-retina-benchmarks-and-speed-tests-os-x-windows-8-1/.

This is with the i7 and the M290X, I've got the M295X coming on Tuesday so I'll be able to run the same test on that and post the difference.

Late 2014 – 27″ iMac i7 4790K 4Ghz, 16GB, 512GB SSD, AMD M290X
Unigine Valley – Extreme HD – OS X – 1096
Unigine Valley – Extreme HD – Win 8.1 – 1302
Unigine Heaven – Extreme – OS X – 659
Unigine Heaven – Extreme – Win 8.1 – 841
3dMark Win 8.1 – 5319

I think people had been calling out for Windows boot camp benchmarks. As you can see, quite a bit higher than in OS X.