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

iMac Vega 64x, 64, 56 & 48

H

HelloAgain16

macrumors member
Original poster
Nov 19, 2019
42
4
Hello all together!
So I would like to buy a new iMac mainly for gaming. I know that a gaming PC would be a much cheaper choice for this purpose but that is not really an option for me as I want the iMac as one computer for both work and gaming. Now the question is whether it is worth it to upgrade from the Vega Pro 48 to the graphics cards of the iMac Pro like the Vega Pro 56, 64 or 64X. Has anyone got experience with these 4 graphics cards and how they perform in games? It would be perfect if someone has concrete fps numbers in real games. I already read some articles with benchmarks like FireStrike but the results are very confusing for me. Sometimes the 56 performs like the 48, sometimes not.
I would be very thankful for any response to this topic.
 
Well... I run a 2017 5k iMac i7 with a 580 card and for gaming I dual boot into Win10 via Bootcamp. In that I find the frame rate acceptable, I can run 4K resolution for Windows games at about 40-50FPS on high (not ultimate) detail settings. Ultimate detail settings I get about 30-40FPS. 5K resolution drops both of those by about 10FPS. Main game I play is Forza Horizon 4. I’ve forgotten the benchmark numbers but I did them some. Note: I’ve installed the modified bootcampdrivers.com drivers, that made a +5-10FPS difference.
 
_Skyfire_ said:
So you don't need one right this minute? In that case I would recommend you have a look at the various iMac 2020 threads
Click to expand...
No, I will buy one before the end of 2019! I can‘t wait until the next generation arrives!
 
Has anyone got information about how the iMac Pro performs compares to the standard iMac?
[automerge]1574240824[/automerge]
And thank you wardie and skyfire for your replies.:)
 
buying an imac "mainly for gaming" is like buying a pair of scissors to mow your lawn.

sure, you can cut grass with them, but it's extremely inefficient and there are far better ways of doing it.

Depending on the games you play, you may be far better off with a mac mini and a new XBOX or PS5 when they come out. For less money.... with games on a 50-70 inch TV or whatever... for less money...

Personally, if i had to buy a mac and run games on it, i'd be looking at a mac mini and a eGPU box. You'll be able to get whatever monitor you like, whatever GPU you like, get better thermals, and not pay the apple GPU tax. Either Navi RX5700 (or XT) or a GTX2070 are better gaming GPUs than anything you'll get in an imac, assuming you're going to boot into windows for it?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JaysonW
Thank you throAU for your response! I know that Macs aren‘t the most efficient way of gaming but I like their design and so on and I want one computer for everything! Concerning the Mac Mini I thought about that option as well and am still thinking about it! That‘s also why I want to know how the iMac compares against that as I would prefer the iMac and its display! Has anyone got experience on how the iMac Pro runs games like Metro Exodus for example?
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU
Can't you wait a moment for Navi? The iMac Navi update will probably be even greater than the MacBook Pro is.
 
As a reference, here's how some popular games run on my Vega 48 iMac:

Metro Exodus: Ultra detail settings, tessellation on, physx on, hair works on @ 1080p = 60fps and at 1440p = approx 35 - 40fps

Shadow of the Tomb Raider (MacOS version): Highest settings @ 1080p = 50-60fps and at 1440p = 35-50fps and at my preferred resolution of 2880x1620 on the highest settings except level of detail (which is set to high) it runs at a locked 30fps.

Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order: Highest settings @ 1080 = 60fps and at 1440p = 35-40fps and at 1800p = 30fps

Witcher 3: highest settings with hair works on maximum @ 1440p = usually 35-45fps and at 1800p with hair works off = 30fps.

I have no experience with the iMac Pro, but I highly doubt that the Vega 56 offers a significant increase in gaming performance over the Vega 48 because it's only 1 teraflop more powerful. The Vega 64 & 64x are a bit more powerful but are very expensive and I doubt they'll be a worthwhile improvement for the huge increase in price. I'm looking forward to Navi, that should hopefully offer a good performance increase. The Vega architecture is quite old now and I don't think any of the Vega cards will be very future proof for the years to come. Therefore, imo the Vega 48 is the best option since it can run most current games at maximum settings and at playable frame rates for the least cost.
 
Which games, which resolution?

An eGPU with a 5700XT could be your best bet. You can even consider a Mac mini for that purpose, depends on what resolution you want to play with.

Playing in UHD/ 4k/ 5k = GPU is the bottleneck
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU
Thank you Sooby for your response! That did help a lot as I am playing Metro Exodus right now and know how much GPU power it needs! So I can see how powerful the current iMac really is in games!
[automerge]1574342977[/automerge]
I play games that are pretty demanding, like Metro Exodus, Assassin‘s Creed or other AAA-titles! My goal would be to be able to play in 4K at 30 fps!
 
The site https://barefeats.com/ does a fair bit of GPU and eGPU comparisons and their testing does include games at 1080p, 1440p and 4K. The iMac Pro with a Vega 64 can do Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Warhammer II at 4K at 34fps.

Since I use a second display with my 2017 5K iMac, last year I decided to add a dedicated gaming PC and it's connected to the second display (which has two inputs) so when I want to game, I can use a machine designed for it and still have my iMac for everything else (plus a second monitor). I paid a fair bit less than what an upgrade to an iMac Pro would have cost and get significantly better performance.
 
So I would say that of I want to play in 4K, I would need the iMac Pro with Vega 64 or 64X because the iMac with Vega 48 is more of a WQHD machine. Am I right about that?

Or I buy a Mac with an eGPU and an external display with even more performance but less „beauty“.

And concerning the Navi generation, the question is when will Apple implement this with the iMacs as the Mac Pro which hasn‘t even launched comes with Vega architecture again!
 
Well I would say that it is pretty good, just like WQHD would be on a normal WQHD-monitor. It‘s just half the resolution of 5K and in my opinion it looks pretty sharp in games and far better than 1080p but not quite as good as 4K of course!
 
I just had another idea how to get my gaming performance! Would it be possible to have a 16-inch MacBook Pro connected to the LG Ultra Fine Display running under bootcamp with an RTX 2080 connected via a Razer Core X?
 
Well, my Oculus Rift runs pretty well on the iMac Pro Vega 56 in bootcamp, and that thing is pretty crazy demanding from a performance point of view.
 
I am in original posters shoes too. as no mac currently is a good deal for gaming I will wait
 
  • Like
Reactions: throAU
If money is no object, it looks like a Mac Pro might do the job. You should be able to add the latest graphics cards as they come out.
 
DLary said:
If money is no object, it looks like a Mac Pro might do the job. You should be able to add the latest graphics cards as they come out.
Click to expand...
agree, though I doubt nvidia will be supported. good thing that amd seems to catch up in the next 2 years
 
DLary said:
If money is no object, it looks like a Mac Pro might do the job. You should be able to add the latest graphics cards as they come out.
Click to expand...

Even if money is no object, no Mac should really be purchased “mainly for gaming” like the OP is saying. My iMac Pro is used for some creative work with occasional gaming through boot camp as a bonus. If someone wants primarily a gaming machine, a Mac is a pretty bad choice TBH. 🤪
 
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