iMac 5K GPU Performance

[RyanJWilliams]

Applecare only lasts for 3 years. A lot of us plan on keeping these rigs for 5-6 years. What do we do?

I don't know where you're from, but if you're in the UK then AppleCare is more or less unnecessary because Apple is obligated by law to repair any failures for six years — not that this stops Apple selling it, although it does acknowledge the requirement.

If you're not in the UK then it's worth checking what your local laws are concerning this kind of thing. I believe that most if not all EU countries have a similar requirement.

 

[macmee]

I don't know where you're from, but if you're in the UK then AppleCare is more or less unnecessary because Apple is obligated by law to repair any failures for six years — not that this stops Apple selling it, although it does acknowledge the requirement.

If you're not in the UK then it's worth checking what your local laws are concerning this kind of thing. I believe that most if not all EU countries have a similar requirement.

6 years? Wholly crap that's a long time! I don't think Canada has a similar law.

 

[steve62388]

I don't know where you're from, but if you're in the UK then AppleCare is more or less unnecessary because Apple is obligated by law to repair any failures for six years — not that this stops Apple selling it, although it does acknowledge the requirement.

If you're not in the UK then it's worth checking what your local laws are concerning this kind of thing. I believe that most if not all EU countries have a similar requirement.

Not quite. There are a lot of nuances to the Sales of Goods Act.

 

[tillsbury]

I don't know where you're from, but if you're in the UK then AppleCare is more or less unnecessary because Apple is obligated by law to repair any failures for six years — not that this stops Apple selling it, although it does acknowledge the requirement.

If you're not in the UK then it's worth checking what your local laws are concerning this kind of thing. I believe that most if not all EU countries have a similar requirement.

...except that after 6 months, the onus is on you to prove that the fault existed at the time of delivery. Good luck with that.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

the logical explanation to me is twofold. The 295X is probably sold cheaply to Apple and AMD probably stepped up and offered to build customized chips for the 5K display while Nvidia probably didn't. If it wasn't for the 5K display, than apple could've easily offered both options and just priced the 980M higher.

ANd also, its worth mentioning that we don't have real gaming benchmarks yet for people who care about gaming. The Tonga desktop chip is literally nothing to write home about. Some food for thought, the 980M is actually just a little bit slower than the DESKTOP 970, which is comparable to the 290X, which is currently AMD's DESKTOP single GPU crown taker. If AMD 295X is as fast as desktop class GPUs, AMD is wasting a LOT of money not selling it to gaming computers and keeping it for Apple.

Again, how much iMacs 5K do you think Apple is expecting to sell? There must be a good reason why Apple didn't go with Nvidia and I think it's the cheaper pricing and the custom 5K Panel.

 

[macmee]

the logical explanation to me is twofold. The 295X is probably sold cheaply to Apple and AMD probably stepped up and offered to build customized chips for the 5K display while Nvidia probably didn't. If it wasn't for the 5K display, than apple could've easily offered both options and just priced the 980M higher.

ANd also, its worth mentioning that we don't have real gaming benchmarks yet for people who care about gaming. The Tonga desktop chip is literally nothing to write home about. Some food for thought, the 980M is actually just a little bit slower than the DESKTOP 970, which is comparable to the 290X, which is currently AMD's DESKTOP single GPU crown taker. If AMD 295X is as fast as desktop class GPUs, AMD is wasting a LOT of money not selling it to gaming computers and keeping it for Apple.

Again, how much iMacs 5K do you think Apple is expecting to sell? There must be a good reason why Apple didn't go with Nvidia and I think it's the cheaper pricing and the custom 5K Panel.

Why doesn't apple leave an open PCIE slot in the iMac for us to stick something better in? It's 27 inches big. If Microsoft can cram a laptop i7 and everything else into the SP3, and if Apple can make the iPad 0.6mm big, then they certainly could have given us a PCIE slot.

I think we can speculate all we want about the graphics card, but I think this is just the typical sort of planned obsolescence that we see everywhere. Apple's logic is most likely: "well, if they can afford an iMac now they'll probably be able to afford another one in a few years, so might as well give them the worst gfx we can market to them now, and most of them will be too excited over the 5k screen to notice". And you know what? Most of us (including me) are more excited over the 5k screen to notice/care very much that Apple's tried to pull one over on us

 

[theSeb]

Why doesn't apple leave an open PCIE slot in the iMac for us to stick something better in? It's 27 inches big. If Microsoft can cram a laptop i7 and everything else into the SP3, and if Apple can make the iPad 0.6mm big, then they certainly could have given us a PCIE slot.

Are there even any free PCIe lanes left in the iMac to do that?

----------

the logical explanation to me is twofold. The 295X is probably sold cheaply to Apple and AMD probably stepped up and offered to build customized chips for the 5K display while Nvidia probably didn't. If it wasn't for the 5K display, than apple could've easily offered both options and just priced the 980M higher.

This makes perfect sense. AMD has shown willingness to work with low margins and custom designs (Xbox One and PS4)

 

[MythicFrost]

Anyone know the clock speeds of the X295M in the iMac? They sometimes differ from reference.

 

[macmee]

Are there even any free PCIe lanes left in the iMac to do that?

----------



This makes perfect sense. AMD has shown willingness to work with low margins and custom designs (Xbox One and PS4)

If there's not, there could have been.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

Why doesn't apple leave an open PCIE slot in the iMac for us to stick something better in? It's 27 inches big. If Microsoft can cram a laptop i7 and everything else into the SP3, and if Apple can make the iPad 0.6mm big, then they certainly could have given us a PCIE slot.

I think we can speculate all we want about the graphics card, but I think this is just the typical sort of planned obsolescence that we see everywhere. Apple's logic is most likely: "well, if they can afford an iMac now they'll probably be able to afford another one in a few years, so might as well give them the worst gfx we can market to them now, and most of them will be too excited over the 5k screen to notice". And you know what? Most of us (including me) are more excited over the 5k screen to notice/care very much that Apple's tried to pull one over on us

I don't know man, I've never been in the party that Apple purposefully gimps their hardware. For example, Apple didn't need to make the ipad Air 2 a 3 core beast with 2GB of Ram.

 

[Pressure]

Anyone know the clock speeds of the X295M in the iMac? They sometimes differ from reference.

There is no reference for the M295X. It doesn't exist yet, outside of the iMac.

You have the cutdown desktop version called the Radeon R9 285 with only 1792 out of 2048 stream processors enabled.

 

[WilliamG]

I don't know man, I've never been in the party that Apple purposefully gimps their hardware. For example, Apple didn't need to make the ipad Air 2 a 3 core beast with 2GB of Ram.

I don't think that makes the iPad Air 2 a "beast." It does, however, make it usable for Safari browsing without tab reloading...

Let's not forget, the iPhone 6 line, released just a month earlier, is still stuck with 1GB RAM, and it can be frustrating at times, especially on the 6 Plus which is significantly higher res.

 

[steve62388]

...except that after 6 months, the onus is on you to prove that the fault existed at the time of delivery. Good luck with that.

IDD. But you can use this section:- 'goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.' I have used it twice for Apple products out of warranty.

Mind you, this thread is for the discussion of GPU performance not warranties.

 

[macmee]

I don't know man, I've never been in the party that Apple purposefully gimps their hardware. For example, Apple didn't need to make the ipad Air 2 a 3 core beast with 2GB of Ram.

If the new iPad didn't have 2GB of ram there'd be a lot of complaints. That was highly requested.

More, Apple has always had underpowered hardware in the iMacs. They've never really had the latest and best gfx card that they could. The base ram is terrible for $3,000.

I would of said the "3 core beast" is just meh. Sure apple boasted about how amazing it was, "x billion transistors, 64bit, etc". But they haven't talked about what's important. How is the platform utilizing and taking advantage of 64 bit? Saying it has x billion transistors is also next to useless. Who gives a **** how many transistors there are, if there's an intel CPU with less but they're more optimized for whatever the software is doing (i.e. a stronger math or media core, faster flop logic, etc).

Next year, there will be tablets with full i3s and i5s with 4gb of ram that start at $100 more than the iPad Air 2, and iPad sales will continue to go stagnant. Last there there were already folks complaining that the iPad Air wasn't sufficient hardware and software wise. This year looking back, sales were lame. People had equal dissatisfied opinions about the iPad Air 2 and this time next year sales for the iPad Air 2 will be even worse. The problem will compound when there are Windows equivalent tablets next year with incredibly better hardware, and arguably better or negligibly different software. When you stand still in the consumer tech industry you die, and Apple is standing very still with the iPad.

To me, Apple either makes the best product or the worst one and right now the iPad (in my opinion) is the worst one, but if you like it buy it.

 

[RyanJWilliams]

If the new iPad didn't have 2GB of ram there'd be a lot of complaints. That was highly requested.

More, Apple has always had underpowered hardware in the iMacs. They've never really had the latest and best gfx card that they could. The base ram is terrible for $3,000.

I would of said the "3 core beast" is just meh. Sure apple boasted about how amazing it was, "x billion transistors, 64bit, etc". But they haven't talked about what's important. How is the platform utilizing and taking advantage of 64 bit? Saying it has x billion transistors is also next to useless. Who gives a **** how many transistors there are, if there's an intel CPU with less but they're more optimized for whatever the software is doing (i.e. a stronger math or media core, faster flop logic, etc).

Next year, there will be tablets with full i3s and i5s with 4gb of ram that start at $100 more than the iPad Air 2, and iPad sales will continue to go stagnant. Last there there were already folks complaining that the iPad Air wasn't sufficient hardware and software wise. This year looking back, sales were lame. People had equal dissatisfied opinions about the iPad Air 2 and this time next year sales for the iPad Air 2 will be even worse. The problem will compound when there are Windows equivalent tablets next year with incredibly better hardware, and arguably better or negligibly different software. When you stand still in the consumer tech industry you die, and Apple is standing very still with the iPad.

To me, Apple either makes the best product or the worst one and right now the iPad (in my opinion) is the worst one, but if you like it buy it.

I'm actually struggling to think how a tablet could be much better than the iPad Air 2. In terms of delivering what a tablet is supposed to, what exactly is it missing? What can't somebody do with it that makes it such a poor choice? It's consistently garnering splendid reviews and Android/Windows toting superior hardware hardly makes them a better choice. As with all Apple products, you're buying into the ecosystem and user experience as much as the specifications.

An important aspect that you forgot to mention is that it isn't just Apple suffering from decreasing tablet sales, in fact Apple is still leading the way in terms of sales — it's just that the entire segment has declined. Sure Apple's flagship tablet might be pricey as with all Apple devices, but its earlier models are available at competitive prices.

I personally suspect that this is less to do with hardware/software progress, and more to do with the fact that tablets have become commodity devices that people feel less need to replace often than a phone. Tablets from some years ago still work just fine for most peoples' casual needs, and unlike phones they aren't subject to as such day-to-day damage/destruction.

Apple is doing just fine with creating tablets, it's just that the market is balancing itself out after a surge. I don't know about you but I now know a lot of people with tablets, and I doubt they're in any rush to replace them until it becomes literally necessary.

 

[steve62388]

I personally suspect that this is less to do with hardware/software progress, and more to do with the fact that tablets have become commodity devices that people feel less need to replace often than a phone. Tablets from some years ago still work just fine for most peoples' casual needs, and unlike phones they aren't subject to as such day-to-day damage/destruction.

This. We have two iPads in the house, one 4th gen iPad and one 1st gen iPad mini Retina. My missus and I are not intending to update either until the batteries totally give up the ghost, unfortunately for Apple their batteries are quite good!

 

[Pressure]

If the new iPad didn't have 2GB of ram there'd be a lot of complaints. That was highly requested.

More, Apple has always had underpowered hardware in the iMacs. They've never really had the latest and best gfx card that they could. The base ram is terrible for $3,000.

I would of said the "3 core beast" is just meh. Sure apple boasted about how amazing it was, "x billion transistors, 64bit, etc". But they haven't talked about what's important. How is the platform utilizing and taking advantage of 64 bit? Saying it has x billion transistors is also next to useless. Who gives a **** how many transistors there are, if there's an intel CPU with less but they're more optimized for whatever the software is doing (i.e. a stronger math or media core, faster flop logic, etc).

Next year, there will be tablets with full i3s and i5s with 4gb of ram that start at $100 more than the iPad Air 2, and iPad sales will continue to go stagnant. Last there there were already folks complaining that the iPad Air wasn't sufficient hardware and software wise. This year looking back, sales were lame. People had equal dissatisfied opinions about the iPad Air 2 and this time next year sales for the iPad Air 2 will be even worse. The problem will compound when there are Windows equivalent tablets next year with incredibly better hardware, and arguably better or negligibly different software. When you stand still in the consumer tech industry you die, and Apple is standing very still with the iPad.

To me, Apple either makes the best product or the worst one and right now the iPad (in my opinion) is the worst one, but if you like it buy it.

You do realize that the move to 64-bit has more to it than just the ability to access more than 4GB of memory, right?

 

[FireWall0400]

Some GPU Benchmarks using Heaven Benchmark 4.0
R9 M295X

1st One - Set to High - 1920x1080 2xAA
2nd One - Set to Ultra - 1920x1080 2xAA
3rd One - Set to Extreme - 1600x900 8xAA

 

[5iMacs]

Likewise, for the R9 M290X

The 'Extreme' setting was hard to watch, 'wavy' artifacts here and there.

I guess this is a challenging benchmark for both versions of the GPU.

 

[MythicFrost]

There is no reference for the M295X. It doesn't exist yet, outside of the iMac.

You have the cutdown desktop version called the Radeon R9 285 with only 1792 out of 2048 stream processors enabled.

Ah I see. So what's the iMac's clock's running at? 800MHz was it?

 

[Abazigal]

the logical explanation to me is twofold. The 295X is probably sold cheaply to Apple and AMD probably stepped up and offered to build customized chips for the 5K display while Nvidia probably didn't. If it wasn't for the 5K display, than apple could've easily offered both options and just priced the 980M higher.

ANd also, its worth mentioning that we don't have real gaming benchmarks yet for people who care about gaming. The Tonga desktop chip is literally nothing to write home about. Some food for thought, the 980M is actually just a little bit slower than the DESKTOP 970, which is comparable to the 290X, which is currently AMD's DESKTOP single GPU crown taker. If AMD 295X is as fast as desktop class GPUs, AMD is wasting a LOT of money not selling it to gaming computers and keeping it for Apple.

Again, how much iMacs 5K do you think Apple is expecting to sell? There must be a good reason why Apple didn't go with Nvidia and I think it's the cheaper pricing and the custom 5K Panel.

I guess it matches the theory that Apple is going with both Nvidia and AMD (rather than deciding on one single vendor) to keep them competitive, and to prevent either one of them from getting too much bargaining power.

 

[robertojorge]

Hey guys... long thread now.

So for those of you that have receive the new Imac and played arround does anyone have about 15 minutes to render one of my templates and let me know the results.

Its a Motion 5 Template and i have everything ready to run...

Thanks

 

[theSeb]

The 'Extreme' setting was hard to watch, 'wavy' artifacts here and there.

I guess this is a challenging benchmark for both versions of the GPU.

The only one that's comparable is the the third one. The other two do not match (windowed vs full screen)

 

[5iMacs]

True. That's the way the benchmark defaulted and I didn't notice until after. On the other hand, isn't full-screen the way these games are generally played? Now I'm curious to see if there's a difference.

 

[5iMacs]

OK, so with windowed the comparison is fairer but it only brought the scores slightly closer. I'd still prefer to do full-screen benchmarks in general.

Looked smooth, though.