Plenty of people overclocked the 680mx. However, it was in windows.
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.
Intel Skylake Processors: Up to 20% Performance Boost, 41% Faster Graphics and 30% Longer Battery Life
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's at GPU. We're talking about the Intel Core i7 4790k CPU. Also, pretty laughable that a 5k display in desktop form get's a miserable mobile graphics card.
These marketing numbers aren't usually what became true once released. General rule is to cut it by 50% and that's far more accurate.
I just want Apple to adopt TB3 support, so that we can use eGPUs. 32GB support in rMBP would be nice but I suspect that might not happen until Kabylake or Cannonlake in '17 and only after LPDDR4's yield matures to fit Apple's needs.
I just want Apple to adopt TB3 support, so that we can use eGPUs. 32GB support in rMBP would be nice but I suspect that might not happen until Kabylake or Cannonlake in '17 and only after LPDDR4's yield matures to fit Apple's needs.
So why do you think it's funny that Apple doesn't allow it when clearly it's for good reason?
I'm assuming you're meaning the 4790k in the retina 5k iMac. I see why they went with that chip since its base clock is 400MHz higher than the non-k i7-4790, overclocking aside.
I had my 4790k overclocked to 4.6GHz for a while, but ended up setting it back to stock partially because summer heat, and partially because it hits the point of "fast enough" at 4.0GHz.
Though in the iMac it thermal throttles like a bastard, overclocking would be pointless to begin with.
You are correct. I should check my reading comprehension. This seems appropriate for me now: lulz.
I don't understand your rambling. What does a PC have to do with the fact that Apple gimped their iMac and needlessly put in an overclockable cpu in it with with no overclocking tools? You know the 4790k costs more than the standard 4790, right?
wait?
they throttle the 4790k in the iMAC?
doesn't that defeat the purpose of putting the top of the line, fastest CPU available in the device?
I'd imagine that if they're using a full 88w TDP part, they've built in the appropriate cooling for that part to run 100%. we're not talking about laptop / tablet where battery saving is an issue here.
Last edited:
Kindly indicate the point in the video where CPU throttling is mentioned as I did not spot it upon viewing, thanks.
Than why not just go with a standard 4790?
Oh wait, I think I just figured it out (correct me if I'm wrong);
The iMacs airflow is so bad that theres no i7 CPU capable of running at full speed. The 4790 (non-k) at stock speed would hit the threshold the same way as the 4790k at stock, but you can't throttle the 4790 as it doesnt allow you to adjust the clock speeds. SO, because Apple prefers form over function and insists on the design despite the bad airflow, they're FORCED to go with the 4790k, essentially a compromise.
If that's the case; WOW, that's lame.
a nice upgrade for the MacBook, though as expected (over a 1st Gen. product) 
the amount of WTF that dawned on me in the last few posts in this thread about how they're using the i7 just made me do the same "WOW"..
cause seriously. Thats... Wow
Sorry, wrong video in that series. Linus explains the issue perfectly HERE (2:31 minute mark)
It's an 85w chip, iirc. It's just the cooling in an aio system such as an iMac just isn't good enough imo.
If you could throw an H100i or summat in that thing it'd be usable to its full potential
you're right, 88w part. I forgot that intel lowered all their high end TDP's a few years ago.
Just remember back when the Pentiums were 130+... Those prescott's. even water cooling wasn't enough sometimes for normal clock speeds.
But its still a valid concern. if you're going to put in and sell the top of the line CPU, you should build your cooling solution to handle that CPU, or else you're essentially charging more for an absence of performance.
if you're making a system to use 88w parts, you put cooling in place to use those parts. Or else, why bother?
Yup! Which explains why the iMac's geekbench scores are so much lower than they are compared to a 4790k running in, say, a hackintosh.
As soon as Skylake comes out you'll have people clamoring over Cannonlake.
It so needs the graphics bump, Intel's GPUs suck and aren't good for anything right now. My friend's boss bought him a Mac book Pro for his work and it has a 6100 in it which struggles to play CS:GO, couldn't even run it on high with 60FPS, had to put it down to low. Why would you make a display with 2560 x 1600 and then use Intel's crappy GPUs. Can only hope this 40% increase means it can actually play some games.
I'm so sick of people saying "they're not for games" like why not? Why can't we play games on the Mac? Basically means you have to choose Windows. Also when you're paying that much money, you should better hardware, on the Windows side I can get an Nvidia 970m and storage I can upgrade myself.
I'm so sick of people saying "they're not for games" like why not? Why can't we play games on the Mac? Basically means you have to choose Windows. Also when you're paying that much money, you should better hardware, on the Windows side I can get an Nvidia 970m and storage I can upgrade myself.
Last edited:
Exactly. This is the only thing that will allow you to do more.
Battery life will help a little. But there will be few applications that can take advantage of the minor performance boost (perhaps the graphics helps a little).
Ok, but if you're planning on doing any kind of gaming, integrated GPUs aren't any good at all even for 1080p gaming. Now with 4k displays coming close to being the standard, you're going to get screwed even moreso if you're expecting performance at that resolution. And since the dedicated GPUs in Macs are terrible for the both iMacs (mobile GPUs? seriously?) and the Mac Pros (D300-D700 are essentially AMD 7870s and up, which are ancient and slow)... you're not going to enjoy gaming on any mac for a long time. Unless your gaming consists of graphics about as poor if not worse than consoles stuck to 30fps or games that don't require it, you'll need a PC with a proper desktop GPU.
So, Moore's Law is History, now we live the Marginal Improvement era (2yr for 24% instead 100% )
Why not? Because they're not. its as simple as that. You don't buy a Geo Metro and take it to Les Mans and wonder why Corvettes and Lambos blow by you.
Intel designs their GPU's for powering everyday computing. Its the GPU that intel wants everyone, who doesn't care about graphics to be using. and they bundle it directly on the CPU so that you don't even have to make a concious decision.
its a vast improvement over the days where you'd have to buy a cheap, junky video card just to have any display at all.
Now, you're also using a LAPTOP low voltage part to run a modernish game. These GPU's are already going to be lesser than any desktop part because of power and heat constraints.
Macbooks, Airs, and Pro's are NOT GAMING LAPTOPS. in fact, Apple does not currently sell a single computer device geared for gaming.
will they run some games? sure, but you have to take the performance for what it is.
If you're someone looking to game at any decent performance levels, especially in mobile, you should not be looking at Apple computers.
and then so on and so forth.
it's how computers have always been. there's always going to be something faster/better around the corner. months away. if you wait for the next gen, there will always be another Gen after.
Computers for the most part, you have to tell yourself to shut up and buy now if the parts now fit your needs. (now granted, if the new product is days/ weeks away, ok, wait)