iMac 21.5 2017 w/Radeon Pro 560

Discussion in 'iMac' started by zerozoneice, Aug 2, 2017.

  1. zerozoneice, Aug 2, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2017

    zerozoneice macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    #1
    Guys, is it just me or the smaller iMac just became a best-buy this year?

    I mean the Radeon Pro 560 has very close benchmark numbers (Cinebench & Heaven @1080p) to my 27" iMac retina late 2015 w/R9 M395..

    I was looking at replacing the 27" with either a laptop (MBPro 2017 w/Radeon 560 or Dell XPS 15 w/GTX1050), but out of nowhere came this little one...plus CPU, RAM and HDD/SSD are upgrade-able...

    Is anyone here who can run some game benches on the 560 21"?
    Found https://www.reddit.com/r/macgaming/...rmance_1080p_running/?st=j5uug7eu&sh=5892922c this, but video is not available

    Mobility is not a factor for me, so to dish out extra $$$ for the stupidly expensive MBPro w/560 is a no-go. Also to get the Kaby Lake XPS 15 for the (apparently better) GPU and try installing OSX on it is a no-go, since GTX1050 is the same as R560 from what i see in benches...

    Another question: i saw in the teardown video that the HDD can be exchanged with a SSD, using SATA port. Is this valid for the first two base models only? How about the top one, with R560 which comes with a fusiondrive? Still using SATA connector?

    As far as the CPU goes, i think getting the i7 7700 from Apple as CTO is still cheaper than ordering it separately and upgrading, right?
     
  2. zerozoneice thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    #2
    iMac 27" 5K late 2015 (2TB Fusion, R9 M395)
    Geekbench4 x64: 4930 single, 14168 multi
    Novabench: 996
    Cinebench R15: OpenGL 94.53 FPS, CPU 594
    Unigine Heaven 1920x1080 fullscreen / high / no AA: FPS 60.9 , Score 1534 (min 28.2, max 124.4)

    iMac 21.5" 4K 2017 (1TB Fusion, Radeon Pro 560)
    Geekbench4 x64: 4909 single, 14078 multi
    Novabench: 983
    Cinebench R15: OpenGL 93.51 FPS, CPU 591
    Unigine Heaven: still waiting for some reviews here

    Pretty darn close...
     
  3. ccsicecoke macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #3
    I suggest to configure it with SSD from factory
     
  4. zerozoneice thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    #4
    512 SSD factory install test:
     
  5. 1080p macrumors 68020

    1080p

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #5
    Thanks for the mention! I appreciate it!
     
  6. zerozoneice thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    #6
    can someone with a 21.5 2017 pls run some game benches on the pro 560?
    the 560 in the mbpro retina is definitely slower than the one in the imac, possibly thermal throttling just like the CPU.

    i can't find any bootcamp benches (BF4, GTA5, Overwatch, Heaven bench, etc...) for the 2017 little mac...
     
  7. _Kiki_ macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    #7
    M395 is quicker around 30% than Pro 560 according to 3DMark Firestrike
     
  8. kindaichi81 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
  9. scotttnz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2012
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    #9
    I'm watching this thread, because I'm starting to think a 21" iMac might be the computer to replace my aging Mac Pro. I don't think I can bring myself to replace my 40" screen with a tiny 27", and my desk isn't big enough for a 27" and 40". I think I can squeeze a 21" alongside my 40" though.
    My biggest reservation is that the RAM isn't "user upgradable" on the 21" model....that doesn't mean it can't be upgraded, just that it requires some specialised tools and involves some risk, or paying somebody else to do it.
    I will definately pay apple for a BTO with SSD (Probably 512GB) and their cost for 16GB RAM, while inflated, is not too excessive, but I kind of want 32GB and the cost for that is pretty outrageous (I have 24GB now, and am often using 18GB+)
     
  10. kindaichi81 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    #10
    baseline 5k iMac 27-inch should be a better deal. once you considered all the BTO etc especially the ram, the cost is better off to get the baseline 5k iMac.

    due to desk size and not choosing the 27-inch which at much better value may not be ideal.
     
  11. zerozoneice thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    #11
    at same resolution?
     
  12. _Kiki_ macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2017
    #12
    same, Fire Strike "standard test" has only one resolution 1920x1080
     
  13. potatis macrumors 6502a

    potatis

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    #13
    Anyone knows if 555 2GB vs 560 4GB makes much difference for playing Elite Dangerous?
     
  14. wesley96 macrumors regular

    wesley96

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    #14
    I'm in the process of setting up a new iMac 21.5" 2017 as a replacement for my aging Mac mini 2012 (you failed me, Tim Cook, where's my updated Mac mini? And you know 2014 doesn't count, I had a quad core i7 in mine) and came across this thread while looking for interesting tidbits about it.

    The 21.5" makes a lot of compromises in design obviously because it's smaller than the 27" version. Obviously, the 27" will be a better value if there are no constraints that necessitate such compromises. I was looking at the 27" version, too, but then realized that my desk would only allow two 24" monitor setup. The 21.5" iMac is about as wide as my current 24" monitor, so it would fit into the desk, unlike the 27" version.

    So with that in mind I looked at what sort of compromises I had to deal with.

    • Maximum memory would be 32GB instead of 64GB, and it would be harder to upgrade - I'm okay with dissecting computers, and I got along okay with 16GB on the mini, so not much of an issue. I ordered two 16GB RAM modules for about $270 total
    • Lower screen resolution - meh, I still got along with 1080p all these years. Any upgrade would be fantastic.
    • Radeon Pro 580 instead of 560 - again, I'm coming from Intel HD Graphics 4000 here, so...
    • Constrained internal storage options due to lack of space - this one was a bit painful. On the 21.5", the both the Fusion and the SSD options only go up to 1TB. For the 27", Fusion maxes out at 3TB and SSD, 2TB. This is because 27" has a 3.5" HDD bay with more room for the blade SSD. 21.5" has a tight space, allowing only for a 2.5", 7mm thick HDD bay and less room for SSD as well. It would be lovely to enjoy the super-fast Apple-supplied SSD, but alas, 1TB is too small for me, not to mention way more costly for the storage provided. In the end I decided to order the cheapest, 1TB Fusion option, which will be gutted out and replaced with an aftermarket SATA SSD. Most SATA SSDs can fit into the 2.5" 7mm bay, so I had plenty of choices.
    So like that, I took the compromises and I have the 21.5" at hand instead of 27". YMMV.
     

Share This Page