iMac 27" or riMac 27"

Discussion in 'iMac' started by NEWDOWN, Mar 20, 2015.

  1. NEWDOWN macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2015
    #1
    Hi everybody!!! I've found this great forum and I've decided to register after reading a lot because I'd like to know your opinions about a question I'm thinking about.

    I'm going to buy my first iMac and I have a great doubt dealing with choosing between this two iMac:

    1. iMac 27" (2579 €)
    i7 3,5 Ghz
    8 GB
    256 GB SSD
    GTX 780M

    2. riMac 27" (2629 €)
    i5 3,5 Ghz
    8 GB
    256 GB SSD
    R9 M290X

    The iMac wil be used for everything, gaming included, but games like Football Manager 2015 for example, not for high quality games, but it is important for me that games like this one works completely fine and top quality, so I'd like to know what would you do or another settings you get, etc.

    Thank you very much :)
     
  2. matreya macrumors 65816

    matreya

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
  3. andy9l macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    England, UK
    #3
    iMac 27" or riMac 27"

    When you say your iMac will be used for 'everything' - what does that actually include? That's the most important bit of information we need to give advice.

    With the builds you've posted above, the 2013 will vastly outperform the 5K iMac for a lot of tasks. You at least need the M295X upgrade to make it comparable.
     
  4. cltd macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2014
    #4
    One week ago I placed an order in Apple store and choose iMac similar to no 1. on your list (but I get GTX 775M and 1 TB fusion drive). This Mac no.2 is base model. When I was in Apple store, even store staff strongly advised me against buying base retina model. I saw this with my own eyes, when I tried just to scroll large pdf file on base retina iMac and quickly got spinning beachball.

    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6671419

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1801945
     
  5. NEWDOWN thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2015
    #5
    It includes internet, Office, a bit of Photoshop, movies and gaming but as I said before the games won't be high requirements but it is important to play them top quality.

    So in your opinion the number 1 is much better than the riMac one and in case of getting de Retina Mac I will need the M295X and i5 would be enough, is that correct?

    ----------

    So in case of getting a riMac which are the important parts to upgrade? GPU as andy9l recommends?
     
  6. Serban Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    #6
    yes m295x is a must have for a fluid experience
     
  7. NEWDOWN thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2015
    #7
    I don't understand why Apple releases the base RiMac without testing completely because they are selling a very expensive product and after some months they should have said something about the problem the base model is causing or giving a fix if it is a problem dealing with Yosemite.

    Now I think that iMac number one will be enogh for me but this Retina display makes me doubt, the difference between the iMac display and the riMac display is so amazing or is lightly better?
     
  8. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #8
    The difference is massive, just like going from a cMBP to an rMBP. Or from an iPhone 3Gs to an iPhone 4.
     
  9. Santabean2000 macrumors 68000

    Santabean2000

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    #9
    I second getting a quality display. Makes a big difference on every use; great value.

    [Just bought a DELL U2515H Display - awesome! Technically, not 'retina' or 4K, but for the price (US$350) one cannot argue.]
     
  10. Serban Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    #10
    the difference is pretty big, even if its for a 27" screen for a big distance view but it is big
    maybe if you look at the riMac will say, hm not such a big difference, BUT try to use it for a week and after that go back to a regular imac, and the difference will be bigger
     
  11. NEWDOWN thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2015
    #11
    Taking into account that riMac was a the first option, the problem comes when I read the base riMac has lag and the riMac with a M295X heats a lot, so what to do with that? Because the amount of money increases getting a riMac M295X model and I woudn't have no problems with my computer once bought it.
     
  12. Serban Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    #12
    M295x heat up just for the first 10 sec until the fans kicks out. After that the Gpu stays around 90C
     
  13. roadkill401 macrumors 6502

    roadkill401

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    #13
    The performance between the (2013) i7-4771 cpu & (2014) i5-4670 cpu. in all single processor operations they will perform identical. When you get into multicore threaded apps, you will see at best a 5% increase in performance. Not really anything that you will notice.

    The graphics side of the equation is over blown hype. The M290x is very capable of running games and doing just about anything that you are throwing at it. It DOES NOT HAVE PROBLEMS WITH PDF'S that some folk here seem to think. it does not give beachballs with everything. One needs to set a viable expectation for what you are wanting. I am willing to give up some silky smooth flowing graphics where it has little effect on my work-ability, to gain lightyears of improvement on the graphic quality that my eyes see. For me having net to no eye strain while reading text, and to have my photo's graphically sharp and see what is really there is far more important.

    I can live with running a game at a lower display level, or reducing the graphic quality as I play games for mental decompression. I don't get paid to play games and the difference between getting the best possible and only 80% of the way there doesn't make a difference to my needs.

    You need to decide what parts of the new computer is the most important to you, and then buy based on those needs and wants. Not simply because someone on this forum told you this one is better than that one.
     
  14. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #14
    I disagree. I did a rendering job in FCP X before and a 3.1GHz i7 (21.5" late-2013 iMac) was about 35-40% faster than a 3.4GHz i5 (non-retina late-2013 27" iMac) in the same job.

    In single core tasks, differences aren't noticeable, but it's really noticeable in multi-threaded tasks.
     
  15. andy9l macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    England, UK
    #15
    This is not true. The other threads here - hell, even Apple - confirm that the M295X stays around 105°C under load, in the 5K iMac. The fan will be at a minimum of 2300rpm at this point.

    Again, simply not true. For multi-core processes, the i7 can be around 20% faster. For NEWDOWN, though, this doesn't matter - nothing you do heavily utilises multithreading.
     
  16. NEWDOWN thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2015
    #16
    So according to that the heat factor would recommend not to get a riMac and buy the option 1. What I don't know is if the riMac is prepared for such a high degrees because I can't understand how Apple has released it with that problem.
     
  17. andy9l, Mar 21, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2015

    andy9l macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    England, UK
    #17
    To be clear - 105°C is the maximum safe temperature of the M295X. It's not overheating, it's just very hot. You should have nothing to worry about. The noise is irritating for some, though. You don't do anything that pushes the GPU hard for long periods, so I can't see you having any problems at all.

    Simply put; the i7/M295X 5K iMac is the loudest, and one of the hottest iMacs to date. Apple say it themselves.

    All that being said, I would absolutely recommend the 5K iMac to you. I returned mine, but I'd still recommend it to others with different use cases. The screen is honestly amazing, and if you don't push the hardware that often, it's a deadly silent, fast and great looking machine.
     
  18. NEWDOWN, Mar 21, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2015

    NEWDOWN thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2015
    #18
    I understand that 105ºC is the maximum when using hard GPU long periods, something I'm not going to do because the maximum use I'll do is gaming but not hard loud GPU games and not long periods, two-four hours per week. So when the riMac is used to simply tasks (Word, internet, videos, movies...) the temperature should be normal although it is used for long periods, I think...

    One more question, for my use, the i5/8GB would be enough but, as you said me at the beginning of the post, updated with a M295X?
     
  19. aevan macrumors 68000

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #19
    Not true. I have extensive experience with base iMac Retina and i7/780M iMac from 2013. The 2013 does not outperform the 5K, especially not "vastly". Even in gaming, the fps is similar with 780M having a few fps more in Crysis 3 (1080p at high, riMac averages at 45fps while the 2013 iMac gets 50) while 2013 iMac gets a few less fps in Tomb Raider than riMac and both have practically identical performance in Shadow of Mordor at high settings. I would definitely not call that "vastly outperforming".

    The only place where it outperforms is at heavy multi-threaded tasks like rendering and video compression where i7 beats the i5. And even there, the difference is about 10-15% (A complex 3dsmax scene rendered in 21min on the riMac and in 17min on the 2013 iMac).

    In all practical ways the base retina iMac is very similar to the maxed out iMac from 2013.

    People who do not upgrade like to downplay new models although they don't actually have experience with them. Same every year :) But facts are facts.
     
  20. Glockworkorange macrumors regular

    Glockworkorange

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2015
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    I have the base model retina. Similar use case to the OP sans games. The only problem I've seen is the lag on Mission Control. Doesn't bother me so much. Machine is fantastic except for that. And the screen is incredible.

    If you don't game or won't push the hardware to the max, the base model or the model with 256 GB of flash is absolutely fine.
     
  21. aevan macrumors 68000

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #21
    No issues here. And, honestly, graphical lag does not cause beachballs. There are framerate drops if it happens. Just like a game drops frames on inadequate hardware. Beachballs appear when system resources get tied and this doesn't have anything to do with gpu. Who knows what the reason was, but if it was a gpu thing, you'd just see stuttering, that's all. Even the most demanding pdfs don't cause beachballs on the base riMac, I can tell you that out of personal experience after using it for more than a month, not by checking it at a store for a few seconds (as I said, who knows what the reason there was. You can only know for sure with your personal computer and time to test it properly)

    It was said numerous times before - the only lag base retina has is in Mission Control and the preview opening animation lags with large 10mp+ photos. Probably a software issue.
     
  22. andy9l macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    England, UK
    #22
    Read my post. "For a lot of tasks".

    Why are you talking about the one thing the OP specifically said they don't care about?

    An i7/780m will outperform an i5/M290X for "some tasks" - like I said - and sometimes that difference will be vast, such as you've proven with your arbitrary gaming and video rendering figures.
     
  23. aevan macrumors 68000

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #23

    I mentioned it because you specifically advised to get a GPU upgrade: "You at least need the M295X upgrade to make it comparable." And that's not true, because the base GPU is very much comparable - and to demonstrate that, I mentioned game scores as they are a good way to measure GPU performance. The games show that the base GPU performs just like the non-retina one GPU.

    The things where the difference between two models will be noticeable are the multithreaded tasks where i7 wins the newer i5. This has nothing to do with the GPU though, so - no, he doesn't need an M295X to make it comparable. For multi-threaded tasks he needs an i7 upgrade, for everything else, they match. In fact, if you read the OP's post, you'll see that the base iMac Retina will most likely suit him just like the non-retina one performance wise. AND he gets a 5K screen on top of that. No upgrades required.

    OP, between the two choices you mentioned - go for the Retina one. You get the same performance and a 5K screen for 100 euros extra. It is a better deal.
     
  24. andy9l macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    England, UK
    #24
    That was not a recommendation to the OP. It was simply making the point that the 2013 build is superior to the 5K build the OP posted. I have not recommended anything yet - other than avoiding an i7 and getting the 5K screen. It's not my place. I've had a negative experience with the M295X, but no experience with the M290X - it's not my place to recommend either, really.

    Regardless, I'd love to see some actual data about the M290X matching the 780m. Everything I've read over the past few months is to the contrary. From the data I've seen, the 780m comes just short of, or actually outperforms, the M295X (let alone the M290X) in most cases - even on this forum.

    Hell, if you show me the M290X matching the 780m, I'd probably buy another 5K iMac. If what you say is true, I don't need the superheated M295X. If that's true, then I'm all in. I loved my 5K iMac whilst I had it, I just couldn't stand the constant heat - ie. fan noise - and had a personal problem with paying for performance you only get for a few seconds before thermal throttling kicks in. That's personal, though.

    Agreed on this.
     
  25. aevan macrumors 68000

    aevan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Location:
    Serbia
    #25
    The problem with benchmarks and data is that when you see bars and scores and percentage you often get the wrong impression. I can only give you subjective and anecdotal data - that I ran quite a few games and consistently got similar scores between the two cards. Sure, I ran Fraps while playing and checked the fps to see if there is any difference, but I'd hardly call that scientific. For me, they run the same. It is hard to compare things using benchmarks (although everything else is anecdotal, as I already said) because you can get the wrong impression.

    However, I don't have any experience with the M295X so I can't tell you if there are any other differences. The non-retina iMac does run things a bit more smoothly in some apps due to the retina screen, but it's not a significant difference and forcing the 5K to run at 2560x1440 gives the same performance. So, would you call that a tie, or give the edge to the non-retina as it feels smoother, or to the Retina iMac as it feels almost the same but runs a 5K screen? No idea. I guess you'd have to try it before you buy it :)

    One thing I can tell you is that I think the base Retina iMac and high-end non-retina iMac have very similar performance, that I think the screen is worth the small price difference because of that and the base model does not overheat (maximum temperature is around 80 degrees for the GPU and only while gaming)
     

Share This Page