iMac 5K GPU Performance

[koyoot]

seems like it's slower than a 980M for sure then

In OSX, yes. The system and drivers are bottlenecking here.

 

[steve62388]

I would like to see the test using one of the standard presets, instead of a custom preset, otherwise any comparisons are meaningless.

Sure. So here is Bumfluff's run with Extreme HD preset. Somebody with an iMac 780M post their result here. I can't find one on the net at the moment, unless you can?

 

[steve62388]

Okay. A Mac Pro with a single D700 in Extreme HD hits 28.1 FPS, 1176 score, 18.7 min, 48.3 max.

Source:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd94xm-d5oY

 

[joema2]

In comparison to my mid-2012 Retina MacBook Pro with 650M using same settings. If somebody has an iMac with a 780M it would be most useful to post your results...

See attached. I'll re-do the other resolution shortly.

 

[IceHot]

Okay. A Mac Pro with a single D700 in Extreme HD hits 28.1 FPS, 1176 score, 18.7 min, 48.3 max.

Source:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd94xm-d5oY

So the performance is about the same as a desktop 760 :/ i really wanted to get this imac, but now i have serious doubts... damn you apple for not going with 970/980

 

[steve62388]

See attached. I'll re-do the other resolution shortly.

Hi,

Select the Extreme HD preset, that would be the most useful.

Thanks for your help.

 

[666sheep]

R9 280X and 7950 in my cMP do ExtremeHD like this.

 

[WilliamG]

Is this really no improvement even from a 680MX card from 2 years ago?

 

[joema2]

...So here is Bumfluff's run with Extreme HD preset. Somebody with an iMac 780M post their result here...

Here it is:

 

[koyoot]

So the performance is about the same as a desktop 760 :/ i really wanted to get this imac, but now i have serious doubts... damn you apple for not going with 970/980

Its in OSX. The system and drivers for that cards are bottlenecking those GPUs...

 

[w00tini]

Is this really no improvement even from a 680MX card from 2 years ago?

be leery of basing decisions on benchmarks. they are artificial and do not represent the true power of a computer in many cases. i suggest we wait for real-world gaming benchmarks (in both OS X and Windows) before making any decisions.

I'm sure our buddies with RiMacs are all downloading Steam and Battle.net right now... right guys?

 

[steve62388]

Its in OSX. The system and drivers for that cards are bottlenecking those GPUs...

That might be the case, but I didn't want to ask Bumfluff (a poster here) to install Bootcamp just to run some benchmarks. I felt guilty enough as it was.

Although it's interesting to note that if you want to game in OS X the R9 M295X is only 12% faster than the 780M. (Okay I oversimplified that, according to one benchmark).

----------

Here it is:

Thanks very much.

 

[koyoot]

R9 280X and 7950 in my cMP do ExtremeHD like this.

Something is really wrong with this benchmark under OSX.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/10
The score for your 280X should be around 3.0-3.2k pts in 1080p "Ultra" Quality.

 

[joema2]

...Thanks very much.

I re-ran Valley on the 780M; results were the same except min. frame rate was 15.9 vs my 1st test which was 6.1.

This is on Mavericks 10.9.5.

 

[666sheep]

Something is really wrong with this benchmark under OSX.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/10
The score for your 280X should be around 3.0-3.2k pts in 1080p "Ultra" Quality.

These 3k is with 0x AA and on Windows Extreme HD is 8x AA.

In above link they don't mention what CPU they were using, and it affects Unigine scores as well.

 

[steve62388]

Something is really wrong with this benchmark under OSX.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/10
The score for your 280X should be around 3.0-3.2k pts in 1080p "Ultra" Quality.

Different settings compared to that website. Also Windows vs OS X.

 

[666sheep]

...and DirectX 11 vs OGL

 

[theSeb]

Something is really wrong with this benchmark under OSX.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/09/19/nvidia-geforce-gtx-970-review/10
The score for your 280X should be around 3.0-3.2k pts in 1080p "Ultra" Quality.

The screenshots you have posted are not using anti-aliasing. We're running with 8x AA. This is why you have to compare apples with apples, or apples with oranges, as it may be the case. They are not using the Extreme preset and have changed to a custom preset.

Edit: darn, got beaten by evil sheep.

 

[WilliamG]

Here's the extreme setting from my 2012 iMac (high-end). I'm running a bunch of things I can't close right now, but it's an idea.

 

[koyoot]

These 3k is with 0x AA and on Windows Extreme HD is 8x AA.

In above link they don't mention what CPU they were using, and it affects Unigine scores as well.

Even so, the difference is... too big. Something is really wrong with OSX, perhaps its because OSX doesnt use DirectX?

Edit.

Anyone fancy trying without the AA on?

 

[Gav Mack]

Im waiting for my new imac but its almost delusional to expect it to run as a gaming machine. If youre a hardcore gamer, stick to windows or a console.

Or buy a old Mac pro 4-5,1 single cpu with hex core high clock Xeon CPU and storage upgrades, then choose your GPU and have a pretty good gaming rig way ahead of any other real Macintosh with OS X and bootcamp to boot.

 

[macmee]

is it better than NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M 2048 MB?

 

[WilliamG]

Sure. So here is Bumfluff's run with Extreme HD preset. Somebody with an iMac 780M post their result here. I can't find one on the net at the moment, unless you can?

Image

My post above has my 680MX from the 2012 iMac. It's about the same speed as the R295X?

What is going on here?

 

[MacSumo]

so bottom line is the retina imac 5k isn't as good as it could be.

 

[WilliamG]

so bottom line is the retina imac 5k isn't as good as it could be.

So far? Not even close. At all.