iMac 5K GPU Performance

Discussion in 'iMac' started by robertojorge, Oct 18, 2014.

  1. robertojorge macrumors regular

    robertojorge

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Location:
    Portugal
    #1
    Hey guys, so i know its still very early to be able to make real comparisons on the GPUs r9 m290x and r9 m295x but the 1st unboxing video shows a benchmark NOVABENCH witch im not sure how accurate it is as i dont use it.

    Usually i use geekbench, cinebench and passmark to make my calculations.

    Anyhow if we take a look at the GPU score of the new Imac r9 m290x
    [​IMG]

    And compare it to the one i just did on my system
    [​IMG]

    We will be able to see quite a diference there on the GPU, just disregard everything else.

    Now according to passmark:

    GTX 760 - 4984
    GTX 880m - 4694
    GTX 780m - 4340

    So if the m290x its close to the 780m shouldn't the score be a lot higher?

    I wish im wrong or that this benchmark is not very accurate, but it seems that the m290x has a values way too low.

    Could any of you guys that have the Late 2013 with 780m do this benchmark so we could compare it to the m290x ?

    Or can anyone tell if this bechmark is any good at all comparing performance of systems?

    In my case im really on the defensive just because of the GPU and probably others too so i think that these comparisons may help at least to have an idea of what performance the gpu has.
     
  2. iMcLovin macrumors 68000

    iMcLovin

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    #2
    Its interesting. I just ordered the one with m295x, I hope it will perform well.
    Im not sure if those tests were done in 5k resolution using a 3d benchmark test. In that case Im not suprised at all. Nobody can exepct to run games in this resolution. But if they were benchmarking with the same res as you did, then its worrysome.
     
  3. robertojorge thread starter macrumors regular

    robertojorge

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Location:
    Portugal
    #3
    That a good though, perhaps the 5k res is pushing the scores down.

    I dont want games either at any res as i dont play at all :) All i do is AE and M5 so rendering times in M5 are the reason i want to upgrade.

    You said you ordered yours. Once you get it are you willing to render 2 of my templates so that i could be sure of its performance?
     
  4. Gav Mack macrumors 68020

    Gav Mack

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Sagittarius A*
    #4
    At 5k no card will compete, even the twin d700's in the Mac Pro when dell start selling their 5k monitor or Apple finally make a tb2 for all the Pro users who are rightfully peeved they are left with an expensive black can and no 5k, crazy.

    Halving the resolution and benching will be a far more accurate guide
     
  5. iMcLovin macrumors 68000

    iMcLovin

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    #5
    sure, ...templates in m5 or AE... what is M5 ? I can render in AE if you like. though rendering speed will have no negative effect from the high res of the screen, its only graphic intensive programs and games using the gpu a lot. And AE is hardly using the gpu except for programs such as Element 3D, so it will be still be the fastest iMac to work on in AE, Photoshop and such.
     
  6. robertojorge thread starter macrumors regular

    robertojorge

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Location:
    Portugal
    #6
    Im not really worried about AE because if it was only that i wouldnt have tried the "Mac Ecosystem" 2 years ago. Although as you correctly said E3D and Raytracing really improves with cuda, the rest is all CPU + Ram

    Now Apple Motion 5 is a diferent story. I sold my mac mini just because the more complex the projects are becoming the mini just cant handle rendering in a effect time window. Thats my only reason to upgrade to a better GPU.

    The Mac Pro being an overkill i had decided going for the Imac full spec expecting the release of the 980m witch we know more or less the performance. Now the r9 295x i cant find anything that really helps to decide.

    Heres a thread that i started in june and could gather some results and might help understand my concern in the GPU.

    EDIT heres the thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1743631
     
  7. steve23094, Oct 18, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2014

    steve23094 macrumors 68000

    steve23094

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    #7
    Interesting. I have a mid-2012 rMBP with 650M GPU. Using gfxCardStatus I forced it into using the discrete GPU and changed resolution using QuickRes.

    My results using NovaBench:-

    Resolution / Score / 3d frames per second

    2880*1800 / 147 / 441
    1440 * 900 / 148 / 443

    So it appears that resolution does not impact on this benchmark (unless the rMBP always renders at high resolution and then scales), or I'm bottlenecked somewhere. That implies that the M290X is indeed crap, only slight better than my 650M. Or the resolution is indeed a factor and and the M290X is just having a hard time pushing all those pixels, because comparing the raw stats the M290X should be kicking the 650M's backside.

    http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-M290X-vs-GeForce-GT-650M-Mac
     
  8. robertojorge thread starter macrumors regular

    robertojorge

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Location:
    Portugal
    #8
    Really scratching my head how this is possible. Yep it should be way superior and lets just hope that it is but somehow the benchmark is not giving accurate results because of resolution.

    My system you can check in the 2nd picture uploaded. I7 4770K, Gtx 760, 32Gb Ram Win 8. I run triple monitors so my GTX is pushing 5760x1080
     
  9. steve23094 macrumors 68000

    steve23094

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    #9
    I can't wait to see some proper benchmarking done on this thing. It's so frustrating that all these unboxings on Youtube have a unit in hand but don't do any proper analysis.

    I also want to know all about the M295X, but that will take a bit longer because it's a BTO.
     
  10. iSayuSay macrumors 68030

    iSayuSay

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    #10
    So it seems the graphic inside retina iMac is bad for pushing 5K pixels. The fact that it's not much different from GTX 775M/780M from last year's high end is putting me off.

    Might have to wait 1 or 2 years to see what Apple could offer to conquer 5K.
     
  11. JordanNZ, Oct 18, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2014

    JordanNZ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    #11
    I would be VERY careful about reading into any single benchmark at this point... I'm sure the good people at Anandtech are putting the machine through it's paces right now.

    According to what's already known, the M290X should be just below the 780m in speed, but above the 775m from the last bunch of iMacs.

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-R9-M290X.108643.0.html

    The M295X should easily beat the 780m.

    Also remember the AMD chips were probably chosen for compute performance, not for the best frame rate in games.
     
  12. iSayuSay macrumors 68030

    iSayuSay

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    #12
    Maybe M290x and M295x will make a good upgrade over current 775M/780M if only it's just a usual, annual updates. But you know it's not just the usual. It also comes with 5K display and that changes everything.

    It was like iPad 3 all over again, a slightly overclocked A5 rebranded as A5x chip to feed the new retina display with 4 times more pixels. It will struggle to do that and it will be a beta testing product before the real deal comes.

    So again I would skip this retina iMac and wait for 2 or 3 years to see if Apple could actually use 5K to do intensive tasks. Not just to look pretty.
     
  13. JordanNZ macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    #13
    For UI stuff, and web browsing it'll be fine, as well as video/photo editing. No one is going to be playing games at 5k anytime soon.. Not for years.
     
  14. Charlemagne macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #14
    Is that an expected CPU score? Seems the overall NovaBench score is really low - my 2009 Mac Pro does 1159 (816 on the CPU tests and 223 on RAM). Makes me wonder if upgrading is really worth it.
     
  15. RoastingPig macrumors 68000

    RoastingPig

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Location:
    SoCal
    #15
    nova bench is trash and hasnt been updated...
    use the heaven benchmark or cinebench
     
  16. SchneiderMan macrumors G3

    SchneiderMan

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Location:
    Apple state
    #16
    It could be an issue on the app's side. It was not updated in a while so it doesn't natively support Yosemite.
     
  17. steve23094 macrumors 68000

    steve23094

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    #17
    Sure, but that's all we have to go on at the moment. Hopefully more benchmarks will be coming in over the next few days.
     
  18. WilliamG macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #18
    You also can't compare OS X graphics performance to Windows graphics performance.

    And honestly, results at 5K resolution are utterly pointless. Nobody will be gaming at that res on the iMac.
     
  19. robertojorge thread starter macrumors regular

    robertojorge

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Location:
    Portugal
    #19
    I really dont rely much on Novabench, but its the only thing that i could find to try and compare it as i could not find any other bechmarks.

    Regarding gaming im not worried at all i simply dont play :)

    What i would like to see while we dont have any other info is if any of the actual non retina Imac late 2013 780m could do the Novabench test so we could get some comparisons :)

    Regarding the diferent OS im aware that iw works diferently but i was trying to get an early read by comparing the results and then using them on the Passmark charts to see where it would fit so we could get a closer idea of where it might stand.

    My wallet was ready and still is but before i drop 3.2k€ i need to make sure im getting GPU rendering improvements :)

    PS: If any of you find other info online post it here so we can have more info.
     
  20. OurDarkness macrumors member

    OurDarkness

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2014
    Location:
    Greece
  21. Georgio macrumors 6502

    Georgio

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Location:
    Essex, UK
    #21
    Only this one which compares GPU's in a gaming environment.
    It doesn't look good either...

    [​IMG]
     
  22. robertojorge thread starter macrumors regular

    robertojorge

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Location:
    Portugal
    #22
    Although its a gaming performance test, it doesn't look good!!
     
  23. koyoot macrumors 601

    koyoot

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #23
    http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8832926

    This is Alienware laptop with Radeon R9 M295X GPU(everything so far points to it...).

    Check the Graphics score. Its 20% better than Nvidia GTX980M GPU and slightly above average scores for desktop GTX970.

    If AMD and Apple pulled that amount of power from 100W GPU...
    http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/747646-radeon-r9-m295x-104.html
    Source for all of this.

    P.S. Notice how CPU bottlenecks the GPU.

    I think the clock might be a little to low for 3.5 Tflops, its more 850 MHz on Core and 5500 Mhz on GPU.
    And its exactly same performance as D700 from Mac Pro.
     
  24. robertojorge thread starter macrumors regular

    robertojorge

    Joined:
    May 6, 2014
    Location:
    Portugal
    #24
  25. koyoot macrumors 601

    koyoot

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #25
    Look at Graphics score.

    R9 M295X is 20% faster than GTX980M and is on par with desktop GTX970.
     

Share This Page