The only thing disappointing is gaming performance compared to old iMac.
But then: Who buy's a Mac for gaming? And its not that You can't game at all.
I didn't bought the iMac for gaming, but I am quite surprised how good You can play on it.
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
But then: Who buy's a Mac for gaming? And its not that You can't game at all.
I didn't bought the iMac for gaming, but I am quite surprised how good You can play on it.
GPU performance/VRAM for OS ops
I've now been playing with Retina iMacs at Apple Stores and Retailer locations quite a few times. One question I keep wondering about: does the speed and additional VRAM of the m295x help OSX performance?
The one simple test I did:
Open about a dozen apps on a Retina iMac
Open the (very nice) Retina iMac landing page on the Apple Website
Set this to full screen
Set Dashboard to off
Activate Mission Control
The resulting full screen scaling animation is very choppy, verging on no animation at all. This is true with Safari in full screen iPhoto or other apps seem to be much less taxing.
Of course, I've only seen m290x-based systems so far, so I wonder: would the m295x be able to do this as smoothly as a non-retina 27" iMac?
I've now been playing with Retina iMacs at Apple Stores and Retailer locations quite a few times. One question I keep wondering about: does the speed and additional VRAM of the m295x help OSX performance?
The one simple test I did:
Open about a dozen apps on a Retina iMac
Open the (very nice) Retina iMac landing page on the Apple Website
Set this to full screen
Set Dashboard to off
Activate Mission Control
The resulting full screen scaling animation is very choppy, verging on no animation at all. This is true with Safari in full screen iPhoto or other apps seem to be much less taxing.
Of course, I've only seen m290x-based systems so far, so I wonder: would the m295x be able to do this as smoothly as a non-retina 27" iMac?
I bought a Mac for PC gaming among another things. That's really not unusual. As I've said numerous times before, the 2012 iMac with the Nvidia GTX 680MX was amazing for its performance 2 years ago. It was a game-changer, so to speak, in the all-in-one world.
I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with being disappointed that the GPU performance 2 years later at the same resolutions (i.e. 1080p or 1440p - NON-Retina) is not tangibly better for games. Just look at every other manufacturer in the industry: In 2 years, look at the GPU gains! 680GTX -> 980GTX, for example. Now where is that relative "mobile" gain from someone such as forward-thinking Apple? It's clear to me they held back, but that's pretty typical these days (1GB RAM in the new iPhones, for example - 2GB a month later with the new iPad).
What percentage of users with iMacs are using them for heavy Adobe work? I'd be willing to bet it's in the single digits. I do photography but I don't consider myself a heavy Adobe user. I don't notice any speed difference between my 2012 iMac and my 2014 5K. I do, however, notice that gaming hasn't got noticeably better in terms of frame-rates, and it's certainly gotten inferior in terms of heat/noise!
Anyway, carry on.
Thats a step way back compared to gtx980m wich is very fast.
Can anyone test m295x in battlefield4 multiplayer and tell with what settings this card is able to constantly get over 60fps ?
What about overclock ? Anyone tried to oc this gpu ? Or it will throttle because already reach 105C ?
Thank you
Can anyone test m295x in battlefield4 multiplayer and tell with what settings this card is able to constantly get over 60fps ?
What about overclock ? Anyone tried to oc this gpu ? Or it will throttle because already reach 105C ?
Thank you
I don't have BF4 on the PC, but I can tell you there's no overclocking these cards. They're already throttling at stock clocks, so forget about it.
@WilliamG damn, if this card throttle now, it can be a catalyst issue ?
Now with your reply i am more to "not to buy".
But if is possible to run battlefield 4 multiplayer And other modern games to over 60fps to a bigger resolution than 1080p is good. I think 1080p game looks ... fugly ? Afterall is "27
Now with your reply i am more to "not to buy".
But if is possible to run battlefield 4 multiplayer And other modern games to over 60fps to a bigger resolution than 1080p is good. I think 1080p game looks ... fugly ? Afterall is "27
I understand the throttle phenomen, but i cant understand why m295x is doing this without overclock. This means m295x is equal with gtx780m from 2013 model, since 780m can be easly overclock.
I am very dissapointed until now, but someone still need to test on battlefield4 with Mantle support to see on what resolution will stand constantly on 60fps.
I just wanted to change rmbp with this new rimac, and i still hope...
What percentage of users with iMacs are using them for heavy Adobe work? I'd be willing to bet it's in the single digits. I do photography but I don't consider myself a heavy Adobe user. I don't notice any speed difference between my 2012 iMac and my 2014 5K. I do, however, notice that gaming hasn't got noticeably better in terms of frame-rates, and it's certainly gotten inferior in terms of heat/noise!
Anyway, carry on.
A LOT. Most design houses have their designers on a MBP + Monitor or an iMac.
Then you need to read up how AMD's current crop of GPUs work.
See here:- http://www.anandtech.com/show/7457/the-radeon-r9-290x-review/5
The next revision of the iMac 5k will be the one to get.
By then it'll most likely be able to be used as a Target Display due to implementation of newer cable technologies (for the required bandwidth).
Also, it will surely get a nice spec bump that everyone is mentioning would be nice to have. Right now the only sizable "spec bump" in reality is the screen (compared to the iMac's being replaced)
I always would want the target display ability to better extend the life and value of an iMac, especially considering how nothing about them can be upgraded later (nothing major that is - like the GPU)
By then it'll most likely be able to be used as a Target Display due to implementation of newer cable technologies (for the required bandwidth).
Also, it will surely get a nice spec bump that everyone is mentioning would be nice to have. Right now the only sizable "spec bump" in reality is the screen (compared to the iMac's being replaced)
I always would want the target display ability to better extend the life and value of an iMac, especially considering how nothing about them can be upgraded later (nothing major that is - like the GPU)
But the screen is the biggest "spec bump" the iMac has had since 2010, when they first made them available with SSDs (iMac11,3). Please remember that these are iMacs that we're talking about here, and the purposes for which most people get them.
Four years, that's long enough for me. I'm not going to put off 27" Retina until 2016 just to get Target Display Mode.
How many people waste an iMac for Target Display Mode vs just buying a much cheaper display anyway?
Four years, that's long enough for me. I'm not going to put off 27" Retina until 2016 just to get Target Display Mode.
How many people waste an iMac for Target Display Mode vs just buying a much cheaper display anyway?
I wouldn't wait just for target display either... But I will wait for an upgraded GPU capable to drive that screen without throtling or sounding like a hoover on my desk while I work or play with it.
Apple could also just bring back a thicker case like the 2010 model which would give the iMac a better airflow inside the case. After all, we're not using the iMac as a razor to shave ourself so it doesn't really need to be that thin at the edge...
I wouldn't wait just for target display either... But I will wait for an upgraded GPU capable to drive that screen without throtling or sounding like a hoover on my desk while I work or play with it.
Apple could also just bring back a thicker case like the 2010 model which would give the iMac a better airflow inside the case. After all, we're not using the iMac as a razor to shave ourself so it doesn't really need to be that thin at the edge...
A hoover? Come on now... It sounds exactly like the previous-year iMacs under load, just that it tends to get to that level of fan noise more easily.
I don't think it's a Catalyst driver issue. I get the same temperatures in OS X and Windows 8. I suppose it's possible both OS X and Windows 8 need some love in terms of drivers.
I know I've complained a LOT about the 5K iMac. Truth is I really love it. I do. The screen is worth pretty much any trade-offs as far as I'm concerned, and the trade-offs from the 2013/2012 models are small. MOSTLY it's just the additional heat, which may/may not prove to be an issue down the line.
Again, for me, I can't shake the nagging feeling Apple didn't do all they could with the 5K GPU. After all, many of us paid the extra $250 for the M295X and wonder where that extra power went. This is, though, from the perspective of a 2012 iMac owner. Those of you with 2011-and-older iMacs will likely be THRILLED by the performance of the 5K iMac. I'm not letting any reservations get to me. Gaming on my iMac really is just fine; just perhaps not what it could have been.
99.9% of the time I'm staring at simple email/web browser/forum text, or working on photos, and quite frankly there's no other computer I'd rather be sitting in front of. The 5K iMac is just astonishing on a simple visual level - the level on which we all interact with our computers most of all, and that's why I don't regret spending a fortune on it.
I have no idea where that comes from. Almost all designer/print companies I visit use iMacs almost exclusively!
I am a designer and I use an iMac always.
I'm sure you are! That's never in dispute. I'm not saying that most designers don't use iMacs (I have no idea if that's true or not). I'm saying the majority of iMac owners are NOT designers!
Anecdotally, I know a zillion iMac owners, and none of them is a designer.
I'm sure you are! That's never in dispute. I'm not saying that most designers don't use iMacs (I have no idea if that's true or not). I'm saying the majority of iMac owners are NOT designers!
Anecdotally, I know a zillion iMac owners, and none of them is a designer.
Sorry William, I misread your post!
The cool thing about target display mode is simply longevity of the screen itself once the internals are outdated.
I personally got totally burned by iMac resale values that basically tank when they release new models and refurbs and so I'm particularly sensitive to getting a lot of value out of the unit itself including after its internal components are outdated. Even when that happens this screen will still be a great screen it would be awesome to use with a future laptop.
It won't be a long wait for target display mode. I would almost guarantee it will come back in next years revision along with a huge GPU bump.
As other people have stated the target display mode isn't the thing worth waiting for but definitely a more substantial GPU upgrade is worth waiting for IMO.
Depends on what you want from your Mac. For browsing, emailing, Photoshop, Lightroom etc, - I doubt there's going to be much of a difference. Gaming is a whole other story, of course..
Fair enough.
But the one thing that can really be argued is that the 5k iMac specs *other* than the screen really didn't get a huge bump.
That alone would out me off, as I woukd want such an expensive, non upgradable, computer to be more forward looking specs wise.
Just me though. I'm sure many will buy and love it! All good.
It's also worth mentioning that a "normal user" might be compelled to buy the base model -- definitely not a good move for forward looking specs. Machine is a bit of a trap that way.
Oh yes. But again, those of you with pre-2012 iMacs will think this is a huuuuge upgrade. The difference is massive in every respect. Life's too short to wait another year (that's a massive percentage of life) in the hope that something substantially better comes out.