Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iMac 5K GPU Performance

theSeb said:
lol, I deleted it. I have to download it again.

The fans hasn't moved from its usual speed and the GPU temperatures have not moved.
Click to expand...

Nice. Thanks for sharing that 🙂

So according to Novabench the m290x is is almost the same as 1 D700 🙂 hehe!! 🙂

I think we have to forget Novabench really. But it was the only one i found at the time.

Oh well, anyway im really more optimistic now specially with that info that koyoot shared , than i was when i started this thread 🙂
 
Another thing poped to my mind.

If this 3dMark 11 scores are legit for M295X it means single GPU destroys Dual GPUs from Mac Pro. 11k and 12k For D300 and D500 Graphics score.

Sweet mother of god.
 
robertojorge said:
Nice. Thanks for sharing that 🙂

So according to Novabench the m290x is is almost the same as 1 D700 🙂 hehe!! 🙂

I think we have to forget Novabench really. But it was the only one i found at the time.

Oh well, anyway im really more optimistic now specially with that info that koyoot shared , than i was when i started this thread 🙂
Click to expand...

There is another thing to note and I was about to edit the post again, but you quoted me before I could. You cannot reliably compare most of these benchmarks on different platforms, so give me a moment to log into Bootcamp and I'll run the windows version.
 
theSeb said:
There is another thing to note and I was about to edit the post again, but you quoted me before I could. You cannot reliably compare most of these benchmarks on different platforms, so give me a moment to log into Bootcamp and I'll run the windows version.
Click to expand...

Better run 3dMark 11 for best comparison of performance 😉. M295X should be about one D700 FirePro GPU or slightly faster.
 
robertojorge said:
Totally respect your opinion.

But what we are trying to establish here is to gather as much info as we can on the GPU specially the m295x witch was unknown to me till a few days.

Lets not argue prices and what we should buy or not please 🙂
Click to expand...

I just mean I don't think it is a fair comparison to compare the iMac to the Mac pro. I don't care what other people buy 🙂 I hope the gpu has great performance, so far the reports of the 290x iMacs are pretty decent but it depends on your usage and I'm anxious to see how well the 295x performs since it is the one I chose.
 
leenak said:
I just mean I don't think it is a fair comparison to compare the iMac to the Mac pro. I don't care what other people buy 🙂 I hope the gpu has great performance, so far the reports of the 290x iMacs are pretty decent but it depends on your usage and I'm anxious to see how well the 295x performs since it is the one I chose.
Click to expand...

Great 🙂 Thats the one i want to get also 🙂
 
My frothing demand is increasing. I feel like (much like the 2GB RAM hopes for iPad Air 2) that we won't know till we know!

There's my deep thought for the day. Carry on.
 
koyoot said:
Better run 3dMark 11 for best comparison of performance 😉. M295X should be about one D700 FirePro GPU or slightly faster.
Click to expand...

I have tried to install this Novabench on Windows 8.1 and I give up. It wants .NET framework 2. Windows 8 comes with 4.5, but you can enable the previous versions in the control panel. So I went and did that. Windows then said that it needs to download additional components. Then it told me that it can't do it because I am not connected to the internet, when clearly I am, so I have given up. Now I am downloading 1.5 GBs 3dMark 11, but I am sure that there are results out there already for this.
 
theSeb said:
I have tried to install this Novabench on Windows 8.1 and I give up. It wants .NET framework 2. Windows 8 comes with 4.5, but you can enable the previous versions in the control panel. So I went and did that. Windows then said that it needs to download additional components. Then it told me that it can't do it because I am not connected to the internet, when clearly I am, so I have given up. Now I am downloading 1.5 GBs 3dMark 11, but I am sure that there are results out there already for this.
Click to expand...

(Im just curious, because I wanted to buy similar computer that you use - 3.5 GHz 6 core, 32 GB RAM, D700) 😛
 
koyoot said:
(Im just curious, because I wanted to buy similar computer that you use - 3.5 GHz 6 core, 32 GB RAM, D700) 😛
Click to expand...

I am curious too, so will run it , but this is the free version. I am not curious enough to actually buy 3dmark
 
This is not exactly quantified data, but check out what TechCrunch had to say:

The new iMac is also a powerful gaming machine, if that’s your thing. I played Civilization V on the machine at its max possible resolution (which is still just 3200×1800 in HiDPI mode, and therefore still scaled on the iMac’s Retina display) and the gameplay experience was smooth and fast, even in later stages of the game when the map gets a bit crowded with visual elements. Other action games, like last year’s Tomb Raider, also performed well.
Click to expand...

promising... i'm going to be totally stoked if this can run at 2560 res with solid frame rates. coming from an Iris rMBP 13" this should be a nice bump up in gaming situations.
 
Some benchmarks of the R9 M290X.

PC Mag review of the 2014 riMAC reports:-

In Heaven, the iMac produced 67 frames per second (fps) at basic 1,366-by-768 resolution and medium detail settings, and 21fps at higher detail and 1,920-by-1,080 resolution. It fared slightly better in Valley, where it produced 81fps at lower resolution and detail settings, and a just-playable 29fps at full HD and high detail.

I also stumbled across this http://www.computershopper.com/feature/performance-preview-nvidia-geforce-gtx-980m which I hadn't seen before. It's a benchmark of the 980M but also includes a R9 M290X. These two items suggest the M290X will have lower performance than the 880M.

All that being said, what I really want is the M295X.
 
I just realised that you guys are comparing 3dMark 11 and I downloaded 3dMark 13. Oh well.
 

Attachments

  • Capture1.PNG
    Capture1.PNG
    626.2 KB · Views: 361
  • Capture2.PNG
    Capture2.PNG
    367.2 KB · Views: 340
  • Capture3.PNG
    Capture3.PNG
    42.6 KB · Views: 245
koyoot said:
Another thing poped to my mind.

If this 3dMark 11 scores are legit for M295X it means single GPU destroys Dual GPUs from Mac Pro. 11k and 12k For D300 and D500 Graphics score.

Sweet mother of god.
Click to expand...

Here is the result for the D700. This is the middle test (performance I think it's called?), since you need to buy to use the other two.
 

Attachments

  • Capture4.PNG
    Capture4.PNG
    283 KB · Views: 346
theSeb said:
Here is the result for the D700. This is the middle test (performance I think it's called?), since you need to buy to use the other two.
Click to expand...

Nice. If these numbers of the m295x prove to be righ than we are looking at something really great.

The graphics score is the same +- as the dual D700.

Thanks for sharing that 🙂
 
koyoot said:
Better run 3dMark 11 for best comparison of performance 😉. M295X should be about one D700 FirePro GPU or slightly faster.
Click to expand...

Sweet to hear! I'm so happy that, for the first time, I maxed out my GPU by getting the M295X as well as my CPU. Them pixels need all the firepower they can get. Looks like the D700 and M295X both produce the same 3.5 teraflops of processing performance looking at Apple's GPU descriptions.
 
Last edited:
If one believe in m295x to be great then he can start believing in unicorns as well.

Wake up people, enable logic in your brains, m295x is Tonga chip, which a bit weaker than Tahiti (7970) chip in every game benchmark out there. (Tahiti has 384-bit memory bus, Tonga - only 256-bit, crucial point for hires, even texture delta compression doesn't help much)

We don't know yet if m295x in imac gonna bring 1792 or full 2048 shader cores, either way it's weaker than ONE D700 (full, 2048 cores Tahiti chip) at same clock speed. And imac's gpu usualy have lower clocks.

First actual data proves such point, m290x are very weak in 3d load (unigine fps above) according to pcmag.
 
No one really expect i!ac to be a 3D powerhouse or gaming machine.

As long as u keep the setting a bit lower than maximum u are good to go.
 
The m295x is a killer GPU for gaming..but for 1440p resolution that's all. the rest is gorgeous
I thing the m295x is around 20% better than 780M
 
I think it is going to be great at 1440 gaming! And that is all I want. Now sure some people may want to do 5k gaming but good luck to them. If you are buying a system purely gaming, then you are looking at a self built or speciality built windows based tower. If you want an all around machine, the iMac is going to be great.
 
pasadena said:
There's apparently an awful lot of people who do and think that if a computer is not a killer gaming machine, then it's not worth even existing.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know about that, it's a mobile GPU after all. But I think what people want is the M290X to be at least competitive with a 880M and in the case of the M295X with the 980M (if a bit slower).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back