iMac Pro iMac Pro Vega 56 Gaming Testing Results

As far as the colour difference, are you still playing in OSX, or using stock Bootcamp drivers? Apple's Vega Pro drivers are absolute crap for gaming, that's most likely the culprit. The unofficial Adrenaline 18.2.2 in Bootcamp makes a huge difference.

Well, sounds like the PC system is winning out. :) Maybe I would feel the same, if I had the possibility to properly test it like you have. Good thing I don't know what I'm missing out on. :) I agree, fiddling around with the settings kills the immersion, but it's only temporary until your familiar with how the card works. Most games work just fine btw., the one you have to be careful about is AA. There will always be issues anyway, for instance Crysis 1 is notorious for it's lack of optimisation for newer PCs.
 
As far as the colour difference, are you still playing in OSX, or using stock Bootcamp drivers? Apple's Vega Pro drivers are absolute crap for gaming, that's most likely the culprit. The unofficial Adrenaline 18.2.2 in Bootcamp makes a huge difference.

Well, sounds like the PC system is winning out. :) Maybe I would feel the same, if I had the possibility to properly test it like you have. Good thing I don't know what I'm missing out on. :) I agree, fiddling around with the settings kills the immersion, but it's only temporary until your familiar with how the card works. Most games work just fine btw., the one you have to be careful about is AA. There will always be issues anyway, for instance Crysis 1 is notorious for it's lack of optimisation for newer PCs.

All the tests had been done in Mac OS 10.13.3 on my iMac Pro. I just installed Windows 10 today, I haven't test it on the games yet.
 
I was debating between that and the Alienware 34. After seeing multiple Youtube reviews, I decide to go with the Alienware. I think these are the top two monitors for gaming right now.

I wish there is a 4K or 5K curved monitor with a refresh rate of at least 100...I wish Apple makes a curved iMac 34 inch...

There are no 5K with 120refresh rate because basically nothing will run it its just to graphically intensive.

Even 4k only get a few monitors at 144hz with these being the only ones I can find

Acer Predator XB272-HDR

Acer Predator X27

You will need 2x 1080 graphics cards in SLI to get the most to of it in gaming though.
 
There are no 5K with 120refresh rate because basically nothing will run it its just to graphically intensive.

Even 4k only get a few monitors at 144hz with these being the only ones I can find

Acer Predator XB272-HDR

Acer Predator X27

You will need 2x 1080 graphics cards in SLI to get the most to of it in gaming though.


The Acer XB272 has a refresh rate of only 60, making it on par with iMac 5K screen, the other one with a 144Hz is not a 4K.

I have researched this for the whole month, there are really no 4K or 5K monitor with a refresh rate of more than 100Hz at this point of time.
[doublepost=1519697718][/doublepost]
As far as the colour difference, are you still playing in OSX, or using stock Bootcamp drivers? Apple's Vega Pro drivers are absolute crap for gaming, that's most likely the culprit. The unofficial Adrenaline 18.2.2 in Bootcamp makes a huge difference.

Well, sounds like the PC system is winning out. :) Maybe I would feel the same, if I had the possibility to properly test it like you have. Good thing I don't know what I'm missing out on. :) I agree, fiddling around with the settings kills the immersion, but it's only temporary until your familiar with how the card works. Most games work just fine btw., the one you have to be careful about is AA. There will always be issues anyway, for instance Crysis 1 is notorious for it's lack of optimisation for newer PCs.


Preliminary testing results:

After upgrading to the unofficial driver Adrenaline 18.2.2, I noticed a huge improvement in the FPS and graphic color in World of Warcraft. I will post the result shortly.

Unfortunately, after installing Adrenaline 18.2.2, the Apple Wireless Keyboard no longer work with the iMac Pro under Windows 10 setting.....
 
I was debating between that and the Alienware 34. After seeing multiple Youtube reviews, I decide to go with the Alienware. I think these are the top two monitors for gaming right now.

I wish there is a 4K or 5K curved monitor with a refresh rate of at least 100
...I wish Apple makes a curved iMac 34 inch...
There is regular 27" / 4k / 144hz and curved 35" / 3440 x 1440 / 200hz coming out soon.
Pretty much releasing all the in-between of what you want :D
 
There is regular 27" / 4k / 144hz and curved 35" / 3440 x 1440 / 200hz coming out soon.
Pretty much releasing all the in-between of what you want :D

Hmm...The 27 inch 4K 144Hz is very interesting. The 35 inch 200Hz is not practical, even the 1080Ti cannot run most game at 200 FPS, it will be wasted.

More practically speaking, I always wonder can anyone's eyes tell the difference between 120Hz and 200Hz? Even between 60Hz and 120Hz, though I could "feel" it, but I have to look carefully to see the difference. I think manufacturer should focus on making a 4K or 5K 34-36 inch curved monitor with at least 120Hz. I think wide-view curved monitor may be the future of monitor, the extra space experience cannot be discounted.
 
Hmm...The 27 inch 4K 144Hz is very interesting. The 35 inch 200Hz is not practical, even the 1080Ti cannot run most game at 200 FPS, it will be wasted.

More practically speaking, I always wonder can anyone's eyes tell the difference between 120Hz and 200Hz? Even between 60Hz and 120Hz, though I could "feel" it, but I have to look carefully to see the difference. I think manufacturer should focus on making a 4K or 5K 34-36 inch curved monitor with at least 120Hz. I think wide-view curved monitor may be the future of monitor, the extra space experience cannot be discounted.
Yes, I don't know why they would want to release a 35" curved 200hz before trying 4k/5k 120hz.
Would have to wait until Volta GPU comes to drive them. Are they coming out soon? :)
 
Impressive 5K scores with the 18.2.2 driver in Bootcamp! AMD Vega is known for being strong in high resolutions. Makes me feel slightly better for not going the Corsair One+ultrawide route. :)

PS: I strongly recommend the Logitech MX Master 2S mouse. It's so good I've actually put away my trackpad, never thought that would happen.
 
My wife plays the macOS version of Diablo III with our iMac Pro (10-core, 128GB memory, 4TB SSD) with Radeon Pro Vega 64 at native 5K resolution all the time. I have no idea how to benchmark it or report FPS, but it seems smooth and flawless.

I'm assuming you didn't buy this machine just to play Diablo 3? ;)
[doublepost=1519731928][/doublepost]Guys, Microsoft have a machine that can kill the Mac Pro in every game. It's called and Xbox.

*** and yes I am poking fun because I bought a nMP a few years ago and discovered for myself just how bad it was at gaming ***
 
I'm assuming you didn't buy this machine just to play Diablo 3? ;)
[doublepost=1519731928][/doublepost]Guys, Microsoft have a machine that can kill the Mac Pro in every game. It's called and Xbox.

*** and yes I am poking fun because I bought a nMP a few years ago and discovered for myself just how bad it was at gaming ***

People can obviously buy what they want and use the Macs how they want but indeed I am surprised to see so many people in recent forum subjects trying to get the ultimate Mac computer setup to then install Bootcamp and Windows. Never thought so many people bothered with that. :eek:

I'm personally only interested in Macs because of Mac OS. If my next iMac only came with Windows I'd want a £1000-1500 discount. :p
 
People can obviously buy what they want and use the Macs how they want but indeed I am surprised to see so many people in recent forum subjects trying to get the ultimate Mac computer setup to then install Bootcamp and Windows. Never thought so many people bothered with that. :eek:

I'm personally only interested in Macs because of Mac OS. If my next iMac only came with Windows I'd want a £1000-1500 discount. :p

Yep, there's not point running Windows on a Mac when a PC does it for a much cheaper price and often better. Mac OS is a nicer place to be, but these days Apple don't have the hardware I want to support their OS. So a cheap PC it is.
 
Yep, there's not point running Windows on a Mac when a PC does it for a much cheaper price and often better. Mac OS is a nicer place to be, but these days Apple don't have the hardware I want to support their OS. So a cheap PC it is.


We need to be very specific when talking about Apple hardware vs PC. Traditionally 2 things have been true

Apple excels at All-in-Ones and falters in desktops choices
PC excels at desktops and falters with All-in-Ones choices

As crazy as it sounds to buy a iMac and install Windows on it if you really look at the All-in-One market PC is lacking a lot. Compare something like a MicroSoft Studio Surface and the specs are terrible for the cost. Though there have been some recent entries to the All-in-One market for PCs such as the Dell XPS 27(though i've read about lots of issues) and the Digital Storm Aura. Also need to account for the fact that selling used iMacs are very easy and you can retain a lot of value unlike a PC.
 
We need to be very specific when talking about Apple hardware vs PC. Traditionally 2 things have been true

Apple excels at All-in-Ones and falters in desktops choices
PC excels at desktops and falters with All-in-Ones choices

As crazy as it sounds to buy a iMac and install Windows on it if you really look at the All-in-One market PC is lacking a lot. Compare something like a MicroSoft Studio Surface and the specs are terrible for the cost. Though there have been some recent entries to the All-in-One market for PCs such as the Dell XPS 27(though i've read about lots of issues) and the Digital Storm Aura. Also need to account for the fact that selling used iMacs are very easy and you can retain a lot of value unlike a PC.

I think if anyone want to buy the Digital Storm Aura, they are much better off buying the iMac Pro.

Given these testing results, I feel that iMac Pro is actually a pretty solid gaming machine, at least at a 5K level. Let's see it this way, if Digital Storm Aura has 34 inch 60Hz screen, the iMac Pro has a 5K 60Hz screen, in term of refresh rate, it is the same, unless you want a bigger, but then you sacrifice the resolution.

If someone wants a PC, they should get a 1080Ti GPU and a 34inch curved monitor with at least 100Hz rate. If Digital Storm Aura has such a thing, I probably will get that.

For the other specs, Digital Storm Aura uses 1080, NOT the 1080Ti, in my opinion, the Vega 56 or 64 is not necessary far from behind, given the right drivers, it will actually excel. For the other specs, I think the iMac Pro just beat the Digital Storm Aura.

Now, if you can get a discount of the iMac Pro for $3999, clearly, it is a better deal than the Digital Storm Aura.
[doublepost=1519753300][/doublepost]
I'm assuming you didn't buy this machine just to play Diablo 3? ;)
[doublepost=1519731928][/doublepost]Guys, Microsoft have a machine that can kill the Mac Pro in every game. It's called and Xbox.

*** and yes I am poking fun because I bought a nMP a few years ago and discovered for myself just how bad it was at gaming ***

Diablo III, and subsequently World of Warcraft were the ones that triggered me to buy a gaming PC. I wanted to play game again, so I first installed Diablo III on my iMac 5K 2014 in Mac OS, it is unpleasant to play with due to the slowness, then I installed Windows 10, but it couldn't play at 5K resolution, the machine will "hang" and I will get booted out of the game or disconnect easily. I lower the resolution to 2560x1440p and a lower graphic settings, it then became much smoother, but many times, I will still get booted out of the game when the fans became noisy. I realize I couldn't enjoy gaming on my iMac 5K 2014, I searched for answers and realized that many other iMac players faced the same issues, so it looks like it could be Diablo III not well optimized?

Disappointed with Diablo III, I decided to go back to play World of Warcraft after a 4 year hiatus, I installed it in Mac OS on the same iMac, I realized that I faced the same issues, my setting could not go beyond 6/10 at 5K. At 1440p, it is a must to have max AA turned on otherwise everything looks blurry, at max AA, I still cannot go beyond 6/10, it is only optimal around 5/10. At 5/10, though the game is very playable, I cannot say the graphic is enjoyable, in addition, there are slowness and stuttering at time. The tiles on the floor in Stormwind is not great to look at.

Felt disappointed I couldn't use my iMac 5K 2014 to play game, yet at the same time, I really just want to immerse myself in games just as a hobby, it was my dream since I was a kid. I decided to go all out to get a Corsair One 1080Ti with an Alienware 34 inch 120Hz, voila, everything works. Diablo III and WOW are playable at all max settings with no adjustment needed on my part, the game looks stunning at 120FPS at almost all time on the top of the ultra-wide experience, it gave me a significant upgraded experience coming from the iMac 5K 2014, it is like moving from Economy Class to Suit Class in an A380.

Then I realized that I hate those cables, my desk is not as minimalistic anymore, the reason I got the iMac is because I really love the minimalistic clean look on my desk. Based on almost every reviews and comments I saw on Youtube and forums, most people concluded that the iMac Pro is probably an OK gaming machine, there are not much information with the games I played. So I started some threads here seeking opinions. This is when it prompted me to get one to try it out myself and I am glad that I actually did, the results were impressive and much better than I expected.

So which is better at gaming, the Corsair One 1080Ti with an Ultra-Wide 34 inch 120Hz 120FPS vs the iMac Pro 5K at 60Hz 60FPS? I come to realize that both provided a difference type of gaming experience. There is something with the ultra-wide that suck you into the game, there is also something with the 120FPS that make your eyes feel smooth. But there is also something great about playing at 5K 60FPS...the color are most stunning on the 5K iMac, it is like the eyes having an orgasm, but because of the 120FPS experience that I got used to in the last 10 days, you definitely can sense the very subtle slowness on a 60FPS that most people wouldn't be able to tell if they never seen a 120Hz monitor, you feel that you can't go back to a 60FPS. I seriously wish that I had never seen a 120Hz monitor, and I will be happy living with the fact that the iMac Pro is the greatest 5K gaming machine.

If you decide to get the iMac Pro for gaming, please do not take a look at any 120Hz Ultra-wide monitor. You can never unseen it.

Both are great machines! I wish there is a 5K ultra-wide 34 inch with at least 100Hz running Mac OS....that will be the dream gaming machine.
 
Last edited:
Compared to a PC the Mac just has never been a good gaming platform. The old Mac Pro 5,1 or below was okay because you could choose your GPU, but you'd have to boot into Windows which then makes you think why bother having a Mac in the first place. Yes some games were ported to the Mac (Bioshock Infinity, for example) and did run okay natively, but this was on a nMP with D700's. Don't know what it was like on an iMac with essentially a mobile GPU. Either way at the time I had an old PC (i7 3770K) with a decent GPU (GTX 9809 Ti) and it beat the nMP for gaming every time - it was just so much smoother in game play in the same games, even under bootcamp and running the same OS.

This was a £4K nMP being compared to a PC that was worth probably less than £1k. And with this thread we are comparing workstations costing in some cases over £10k and are impressed that they can run games released in 2012. A game which would probably run okay on an iPad. Buying an iMac Pro for gaming is fine if you can afford it and have tons of cash to spare, but there are much cheaper and better ways to achieve the same thing. The iMac Pro is ironically getting very good reviews when used as a video editing tool, but it's probably the last platform you should choose for gaming.
[doublepost=1519773554][/doublepost]
We need to be very specific when talking about Apple hardware vs PC. Traditionally 2 things have been true

Apple excels at All-in-Ones and falters in desktops choices
PC excels at desktops and falters with All-in-Ones choices

As crazy as it sounds to buy a iMac and install Windows on it if you really look at the All-in-One market PC is lacking a lot. Compare something like a MicroSoft Studio Surface and the specs are terrible for the cost. Though there have been some recent entries to the All-in-One market for PCs such as the Dell XPS 27(though i've read about lots of issues) and the Digital Storm Aura. Also need to account for the fact that selling used iMacs are very easy and you can retain a lot of value unlike a PC.

True, but personally I'd never buy any all-in-one computer. I think it's a flawed concept as you have to compromise somewhere and it's difficult to swap out parts later if you want upgrade. I'd rather just have a tower PC and stick my own monitor on it.
 
I think some people here are misrepresenting intentions. It should be fairly obvious that we're not talking about using the iMac Pro solely as a pretty-looking gaming rig. However, some want to game on the side, in addition to having a mac for productivity and work. A typical casual gamer might have a select few games he likes to play, but isn't into playing many hours every week and getting the very latest games. Then using iMac w/Bootcamp is a decent compromise.
 
Last edited:
People can obviously buy what they want and use the Macs how they want but indeed I am surprised to see so many people in recent forum subjects trying to get the ultimate Mac computer setup to then install Bootcamp and Windows. Never thought so many people bothered with that. :eek:

I'm personally only interested in Macs because of Mac OS. If my next iMac only came with Windows I'd want a £1000-1500 discount. :p
It should come to no surprise because the iMac Pro is finally a Mac that isn't heavily hindered in someway to play games.
iMacs with mobile GPUs powering a 5k screen with poor cooling. nMP with five year old tech that's never been updated. Mac Mini...well lets just leave it at that and you can see why there's increased talk about trying to game on the iMac Pro.
I've never used bootcamp but it should be pretty fast to switch OS with the availability of SSD nowadays.
[doublepost=1519801003][/doublepost]
Yep, there's not point running Windows on a Mac when a PC does it for a much cheaper price and often better. Mac OS is a nicer place to be, but these days Apple don't have the hardware I want to support their OS. So a cheap PC it is.
Most Apple users have only used cheap PCs so it's a gimped perspective. Buy an actual good, expensive PC.
Hackintosh it and you may never buy a Mac again...lol
 
iMacs with mobile GPUs powering a 5k screen with poor cooling. nMP with five year old tech that's never been updated. Mac Mini...well lets just leave it at that and you can see why there's increased talk about trying to game on the iMac Pro.
I've never used bootcamp but it should be pretty fast to switch OS with the availability of SSD nowadays.

Most Apple users have only used cheap PCs so it's a gimped perspective. Buy an actual good, expensive PC.
Hackintosh it and you may never buy a Mac again...lol

It is a good point. Although a new iMac i5 would be plenty powerful for me I do find the fact it is mostly laptop type hw a bit disappointing. In that sense the iMac Pro is a great alternative at this time. I'm leaning towards getting the latter myself now, essentially as I see it as a "new" computer rather than an iMac with some newer components but with an old designed cooling system. I have no need for a spinner drive so for me that space inside is also not wisely used. Losing the RAM door I can live with, 32GB should be enough for me.

Although I have looked at prebuilt Hackintosh (I'm sure I could have a go myself as I used to build PCs) the more high end prices seem to get awfully close to base iMac Pro prices and that's without the screen.
Another Pro for the iMac Pro in that sense.
 
It should come to no surprise because the iMac Pro is finally a Mac that isn't heavily hindered in someway to play games.
iMacs with mobile GPUs powering a 5k screen with poor cooling. nMP with five year old tech that's never been updated. Mac Mini...well lets just leave it at that and you can see why there's increased talk about trying to game on the iMac Pro.
I've never used bootcamp but it should be pretty fast to switch OS with the availability of SSD nowadays.
[doublepost=1519801003][/doublepost]
Most Apple users have only used cheap PCs so it's a gimped perspective. Buy an actual good, expensive PC.
Hackintosh it and you may never buy a Mac again...lol

I say cheap, but my desktop was around £3k and my laptop not far off that. But compared to a similarly spec'd mac they are very cheap. ;)
 
True, but personally I'd never buy any all-in-one computer. I think it's a flawed concept as you have to compromise somewhere and it's difficult to swap out parts later if you want upgrade. I'd rather just have a tower PC and stick my own monitor on it.

The form factor is compromise like a laptop. Especially useful for people living in tight spaces that do not want any clutter. Think of a apartment in NYC and having your computer in the same room as you host people. You may not want a tower PC sitting in there. I agree tower PC a far superior though.
 
The form factor is compromise like a laptop. Especially useful for people living in tight spaces that do not want any clutter. Think of a apartment in NYC and having your computer in the same room as you host people. You may not want a tower PC sitting in there. I agree tower PC a far superior though.
Exactly.
 
I think if anyone want to buy the Digital Storm Aura, they are much better off buying the iMac Pro.

Given these testing results, I feel that iMac Pro is actually a pretty solid gaming machine, at least at a 5K level. Let's see it this way, if Digital Storm Aura has 34 inch 60Hz screen, the iMac Pro has a 5K 60Hz screen, in term of refresh rate, it is the same, unless you want a bigger, but then you sacrifice the resolution.

If someone wants a PC, they should get a 1080Ti GPU and a 34inch curved monitor with at least 100Hz rate. If Digital Storm Aura has such a thing, I probably will get that.

For the other specs, Digital Storm Aura uses 1080, NOT the 1080Ti, in my opinion, the Vega 56 or 64 is not necessary far from behind, given the right drivers, it will actually excel. For the other specs, I think the iMac Pro just beat the Digital Storm Aura.

Now, if you can get a discount of the iMac Pro for $3999, clearly, it is a better deal than the Digital Storm Aura.
[doublepost=1519753300][/doublepost]

You're right. I priced a 8 core Ryzen build and for the price you are in iMac Pro territory(assuming you buy it at $4k). Add on iMac Pro can dual boot OSs and the resell value will destroy the Aura.
 
I updated some numbers.

After more rigorous testings. The iMac Pro FPS under Adrenaline 18.2.2 will drop by 10 points under intense spell fightings, also in places of WOW where there are beautiful scenery, such as many places in Pandaria, the FPS will also drop to 40-50, once it drops to below or around 40 you will start to notice the "staggerings" if you are used to an FPS of 100 or above.
 
I've noticed similar things myself. In Crysis 3 the framerate will plummet down to the 30s, and even 20s, in a few places. Typically where there are large moving metal objects. Then I turned all the settings to low, and set the resolution to 1080p. The framerate drop was nearly identical as very high settings and 1440p. This leads me to believe that there are issues with this driver. Don't forget, our 18.2.2 is using a Radeon RX 580 driver, because Apple can't be bothered with properly supporting Vega Pro 56/64 in Bootcamp. (Have you called Apple support about this? The more who complain, the more likely Apple will do something sooner rather than later).

Also, older games can have optimisation issues. I watched a youtube video of a guy playing Crysis 1 on a 21:9 34'' monitor (WAF channel), and the framerate would dip down into the 30s in certain areas. He was using a 1080ti and a 7700K. Just sayin'...
 
Last edited:
I've noticed similar things myself. For instance in Crysis 3, the framerate will plummet down to the 30s, and even 20s, in a few places. Typically where there are large moving metal objects. Then I turned all the settings to low, and set the resolution to 1080p. The framerate drop was nearly identical to very high and 1440p. This leads me to believe that there are issues with this driver. Don't forget, our 18.2.2 is using a Radeon RX 580 driver, because Apple can't be bothered with properly supporting Vega Pro 56/64 in Bootcamp. (Have you called Apple support about this? The more who complain, the more likely Apple will do something sooner rather than later).

Also, older games can have optimisation issues. I watched a youtube video of a guy playing Crysis 1 on a 21:9 34'' monitor (WAF channel), and the framerate would dip down into the 30s in certain areas. He was using a 1080ti and a 7700K. Just sayin'...
The age old question: Can it play crysis?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top