I would wait to be honest, because something new hasn't come out in 1 year and you're just getting old stuff in the iMac. It's all rubbish in there and I don't see how your workflow could cope without 64 GBs of RAM. There was an incredibly helpful poster earlier today today that announced 32 GBs would be the limit on the new iMac. We all thought it would be 128 GBs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac 5K GPU Performance
- Thread starter robertojorge
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would wait to be honest, because something new hasn't come out in 1 year and you're just getting old stuff in the iMac. It's all rubbish in there and I don't see how your workflow could cope without 64 GBs of RAM. There was an incredibly helpful poster earlier today today that announced 32 GBs would be the limit on the new iMac. We all thought it would be 128 GBs.
http://www.barefeats.com/tube18.html
It looks like that in 1440p even 6 core Mac Pro with D500s in same settings is slower than M295X in the same Games.
And at 4 and 5K will be unplayable compared to iMac Retina...
It looks like that in 1440p even 6 core Mac Pro with D500s in same settings is slower than M295X in the same Games.
And at 4 and 5K will be unplayable compared to iMac Retina...
WoW hasn't pushed video cards for years, Diablo 3 is very forgiving on GPUs. Blizzard made the decision long ago to open their games to the widest audience possible.
Apparently Tomb Raider heavily favours AMD cards because of tessellation and their high compute scores. I don't know much about it, I read it earlier in this thread and had a quick look across the net to confirm.
Other games may be a completely different story though. Personally, and everybody is different, I am quite sensitive to stutter and prefer at least 40 FPS. Not forgetting minimum FPS figures are important because it's no good running fine a good portion of the time and then everything going to hell when the action gets heavy.
Yes, it is possible, but for the cost of doing this, you might as well just buy a pc and stick the 970 into that.
You're probably right about 32 GBs not being enough. If I get two of them, I can hook them up together, right? That should fix the problem.
Yup, but you need 2 thunderbolt cables and they have to be the black ones. You need to connect cable 1 on imac A's left TB2 port to the right TB2 port on iMac B and vice versa to ensure optimal data flow.
Got it -- that's what I was thinking, too. Pulling the trigger -- appreciate the help.
Retina iMac with R9 295X benchmarked under OS X. Doesn't tell us much we don't already know because the tests are the same that we have already seen in this thread, with one exception. Cinebench, Geekbench, Novabench, Unigene Heaven (this is the new one, previously we only had Unigene Valley).
Where's Windows, don't any of these people run Bootcamp?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk-0jRqtm6c
Where's Windows, don't any of these people run Bootcamp?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk-0jRqtm6c
Last edited:
I understand people who can't read and make an argument usually resort to trolling. So let me be the first to say, thanks for trolling.
Buddy, pretty certain he knew I was joking about selling my nMP, and was returning the joke in kind...not trolling.
he mentioned me in his post so ya, it is trolling. doesn't matter. went back and forth and he never told me his argument. i'm trolling as well at this point calling him out.
I'm curious what made you pick the M295X over the M290X. Do you have a specific need for the bigger processor? Did you also go with the 4GHz i7?
I'm trying to decide whether to do the same thing, whether I'd be spending money on something I would not get the benefit from. My current office iMac is dying, flashing colored squares all over the screen and crashing, so I want to get something new and with a Same-spec Retina iMac costing only about $300 more than a standard iMac I thought "Yep, get the fancy screen" cuz someone else is paying!
Last edited:
I am sorry that your humour architecture is out out of date by 2 years and that you felt the need to resort to petty and childish insults by calling me an illiterate troll. If you don't understand the joke, then it's best to keep quiet. That's the difference between a jester and a fool.
Anyone with the base model Retina iMac....
I'm noticing Mission Control is extremely slow/choppy. Even on my Mac mini with Hd4000 and two monitors, Mission control at least animates.
On my Retina iMac it is so jerky that it doesn't even animate...
Anyone else seeing this?
I'm noticing Mission Control is extremely slow/choppy. Even on my Mac mini with Hd4000 and two monitors, Mission control at least animates.
On my Retina iMac it is so jerky that it doesn't even animate...
Anyone else seeing this?
I've noticed this as well. Maybe not quite as severe but definitely noticeable enough to catch my attention.
I'm positive there is a graphics driver update inbound for this machine. Aside from Mission Control everything else seems fine and smooth.
Have you tested 4k video playback or anything else GPU intensive? I watched a 4k Interstellar MP4 trailer video (Roughly 700MB) and thought I may have seen a frame rate drop or two but didn't investigate further. Could have been the source or something else unrelated to the iMac's CPU/GPU performance.
I found this post about UI lag interesting. It's only anecdotal but something to keep an eye on.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=20191639#post20191639
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=20191639#post20191639
Last edited:
4820k, 4930k, 4960x,5820k,5930k,5960x.
Reference: http://ark.intel.com/products/family/79318/Intel-High-End-Desktop-Processors#@Desktop
The Reason Apple can't use these because of such a high TDP, too small of space to house a 100+ watt TDP CPU. Also, release date I guess
I think iMacs are the biggest test for a nMP buyers resolve. If you didn't buy a nMP for professional work and require its reliability, than the iMac will look very attractive
4820k, 4930k, 4960x,5820k,5930k,5960x.
Reference: http://ark.intel.com/products/family/79318/Intel-High-End-Desktop-Processors#@Desktop
The Reason Apple can't use these because of such a high TDP, too small of space to house a 100+ watt TDP CPU. Also, release date I guess
Those CPUs you listed all have slower single-threaded performance than the 4790k. They may be great for multithreaded tasks, but the 4790k in the top-end iMac is using the fastest CPU currently available for single-threaded tasks.