OS X updates sometimes include graphics driver updates. You can run the stock Nvidia (and I assume AMD) drivers under Bootcamp and therefore have regular updates.
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
OS X updates sometimes include graphics driver updates. You can run the stock Nvidia (and I assume AMD) drivers under Bootcamp and therefore have regular updates.
So it's looking like the R295X is a bit (but not too much) faster than a GeForce 780M, which is the top GPU available for the non-Retina iMac — right? Except with the ability to handle higher resolutions more reliably (which is where all that GPU RAM comes in).
Exactly right. The 980m was just released. Apple needed huge production quantities back in August/September. nVidia simply could not deliver. Apple couldn't afford to slip the entire retina iMac product because of a tardy component supplier.
AMD could deliver by the required timeframe, and in the required quantities. The preliminary benchmarks show the retina iMac with M295X is faster on many things than the dual D300 GPUs on a Mac Pro: http://www.barefeats.com/imac5k.html
54 FPS vs 29 FPS in tomb raider is more than a bit faster. I believe that TR uses open gl 4 and Diablo uses an older version.
Don't read into that. Tomb Raider favors the AMD chips massively, especially if TressFX is involved.
We'll have to wait for more benchmarks, especially Windows ones, but I think the writing is on the wall here. I'm pretty sure my overclocked 680MX from my 2012 iMac is faster than a R295X. Sad. Apple should have innovated here!
LOL There is no way your 680MX is faster then the 780m, let alone the m295x. Try getting 40FPS at 5k in Diablo 3 on Best out of a 680MX.
And you all keep comparing "our best yet" with a 2 year old card.
Ofcourse its faster.
But in the end comparing with the GPU's on the marked it dirty slow.
Fair enough.
----------
Well, that's kind of the first point of reference that we should be comparing it to.
----------
I am not sure if people are actually reading these articles, or are too busy jumping around.
barefeats said:
73/2 = 36.5 FPS in Diablo III at 5120x2880
Well, I, for one, am very impressed, because I did not expect that.
Let's compare these cards at 5K and not 1440p
I'm not sure about that. If the 780M pulls 10FPS and the M295X hits 15FPS it's academic because neither is playable and you will never run at that resolution. Those numbers are just plucked out of the air to make my point.
Diablo 3 is relatively light on taxing the GPU. I would consider a 14% improvement over the 780M (according to Barefeats) rather lackluster.
Last edited:
Actually, this is already proven. Like I said, overclocked, the 680MX IS faster than the 780M because the 780M has much more aggressive throttling.
At stock clocks, the 780M is faster. With a small overclock (which the 780M can't attain), the 680MX is faster.
This is old news, and the main reason many of us were disappointed with the 780M a year after the absolutely stellar GTX 680MX came out.
Let's just be honest, you buy this computer for 5K. The hardware inside is nothing to write home about. Processor is old, graphics is old, everything is built on processes from a year or two ago.
Case closed. Wait 'til next year if you don't want 5K now.
Case closed. Wait 'til next year if you don't want 5K now.
I have a fully upgraded 2012 rMBP and was wondering how much faster the base riMac and the fully upgraded riMac are compared to the rMBP.
Does anyone have some rough estimates? Someone told me that the base riMac is already going to be noticeably faster despite having to drive the 5k display. Is this true?
Does anyone have some rough estimates? Someone told me that the base riMac is already going to be noticeably faster despite having to drive the 5k display. Is this true?
Case re-opened:
The CPU was released in Q2 2014. There are no newer processors from Intel.
The AMD R9 M295X is so new that we cannot find decent benchmarks for it.
It's people like you that make these forums a really unpleasant and frustrating place.
What's newer than the i7-4790K that would even be considered an alternative?
Way to be accusatory. I'm just stating facts. Both CPU and GPU are built off of old technologies that are 1 to 2 years old. In fact, the entire GPU industry has been built of rehashes for going on almost 2 years now. Maxwell is the first big shift we've seen. CPU, we're all waiting for Broadwell which we know is infinitely delayed.
If you're looking for crazy increases in performance form last year, you've come to the wrong place. Just accept that. It's people like you that are keeping the trolls happy. It's better to just readily understand that power hasn't increased that much for a year or two and if you care, than wait, if not, buy now.
I suppose you would be happy if they delayed updating it at all for another god-knows-how-long?
Who is this we you speak of? From what I've read Broadwell won't bring much of a performance boost and if you want a performance boost, you need to wait for Skylake. Everything I've read says there is no reason to wait for Broadwell. If I wanted to wait, I'd wait for Skylake.
Dude, you're talking about vaporware. There currently isn't a more advanced, more capable desktop processor than the i7-4790K. Please, prove us wrong. Please.