I'm truly glad for the performance upgrades. But, in all fairness, it wasn't that big of a feat to outperform the previous model...
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.
New 27-Inch iMac Has Up to 80% Faster Graphics at Compute Tasks Compared to Previous Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm probably looking right at it, but I can't find a link to a chart like in the OP. Would love to see how my old 2011 iMac and even my 2012 MBP compare to the new lineup just for giggles
I think the performance upgrades are welcomed. I also don't necessarily think the iMac needed to change physically. For productivity, I would rather much have the increased specifications over reduced bezels.
Last edited:
Not just the 2013, but even some of the old cheese grater Mac Pros hold up pretty well.
I'm waiting for some more benchmarks. The previous iMac GPU's all throttle down at least 15-20% under a moderate load, due to thermal issues. It's still nice to see a GPU speedup like this, mostly if you only use Apple's media apps. Would really like a user-replacable GPU though, even at a slightly greater cost/bulkier design, but I realise this is good value for a consumer model.
And if they had put in Threadripper they would have leap frogged into first place. Next year, TB is free and you can bet Zen2 will have it built-in.
How is that any different from any Mac or PC that has ever just launched? At least with Apple you get hardware and ecosystem optimized for the OS.
The claim has been made, that with an iFixit Kit and a little bravery apparently the CPU and GPU are replaceable in the 27 model... I have not gone out of my way to confirm that, and I havent yet had a chance to read through the tear down myself.
Man, I want that new Darth iMac, but I really don't think I can justify a $12,000 iMac. Or car.
OMG, a maxed-out $4300-$5300 (depending on whether you buy the 64 GB of memory through Apple or third party) family/home grade all-in-one desktop with a quad-core i7 processor just barely got a lower GB4 score than a 4-year-old workstation/professional grade $5300-$6300 (again, depending on where you get your memory from, also keeping in mind that you have to buy a monitor separately) rig that doesn't even have TB3 ports with an octo-core Xeon processor! Inferior product! GWAAAAAAAAAAR!!!!!!
In all seriousness, let's wait until the iMac Pro and next-gen Mac Pro are released before we ridicule this thing.
In all seriousness, let's wait until the iMac Pro and next-gen Mac Pro are released before we ridicule this thing.
Last edited:
The Single core performance between Ivy Bridge (the Generation in Mac Pro) and Kaby Lake is tremendous. too many users are being caught up with the Intel hate because over the last 2 generations, there's been slow improvements. But that doesn't take into any account that Mac pro tech is 6 generations back (Ivy -> Sandy -> Haswell -> Broadwell -> Skylake -> Kaby Lake)
For example:
the E5-1620 CPU (fastest single core available in the mac pro) scores 3,066 in Single core performance in GeekBench 3.
The i7-6700k (haven't found 7700k yet, so we're even talking about last generation cpu) single core performance in geekbench 3 is 4,511.
Single core performance from Ivy Bridge to Skylake alone is nearly 50% faster.
And with single core performance that much faster, should something actually be able to leverage multiple threads, that multi-threaded performance will also be higher.
as indicated above, the only reason their are some Mac Pros still on the top of that list is that they're 8+ cores, and for a heavily threaded benchmark application, it would be able to leverage those additional 4+ threads to make up the difference. But if you put a Kaby Lake based 8 core CPU into that list, those Mac Pro's would fall down the list considerably
Do they? Why? It's a great design. Why change just for the sake of change?
I'm hoping so (I'm budgeting for a new PC and want to go RyZEN at this point). But while the licensing costs are going to be waived, Intel still has the right to reject license to use TB.
Will be interesting to see if AMD is going to be allowed a TB3 license despite it being free
Hey, Apple product designers, engineers and product managers -- stop the manufacturing line! This random guy on this forum found something you somehow all missed.
But looking at the price point of these X-series CPU from Intel, it's really hard to ignore...
it has fusion drives. unless they start making SSD that can hold 3TB without costing as much as the computer itself spinning drives are still necessary
Lol wow this went in a really unproductive direction. I have been using Macs since they were putty gray and had the allure of a shoe box. This really isnt a meaningful discussion since this a purely spec related post, not design.
In multicore, those top-end ones still hold their own very well... they have 12 cores, after all. The problem is single core performance, usb 2, and slow ram.
I've just looked really closely at those, because from a price / performance standpoint, they are amazing. With a bunch of cores, and a ton of ram, they are still beasts.
But those are old cores at this point, and using just one drops it way, way down in the pack. The powerhouse Mac Pros of the day are still great, but I'm not sure they're really all that great. I want them to be, though, because they are getting fairly cheap.
IIRC the iFixit team found that the CPU isn't soldered in and is replacable (just not easy to get to if you're not willing to rip it apart), But that the GPU wasn't replacable. we'll have to wait and see for more detailed breakdowns. The problem with the iMac is that it's not designed to use generic PCI-E based add-on cards. So even if the GPU itself was in a socket, there's no way for consumers to get the chips to replace it. Previous iMACs used mobile parts that were not user servicable, since there's no room inside the iMac for a full length PCI-E card
As an Industrial Designer, redesign for the sake of redesign is never good.
Care to show me some realistic in an engineering and design-viable way some sketches or renders of what you wanted?
Thank you for clarifying. Sorry about that replacable CPU not GPU, but eGPUs moot that necessity to a degree i suppose
Very hard to ignore up front, until you see some of the limitations of the platform.
it's a very compromised platform that's clearly a knee jerk response to AMD.
For example: amount of PCI-E lanes in the new x399 chipset are based on CPU in the socket, not chipset. So while you can get up to 44PCI-E lanes in the highest end Skylake-X chip. If you opt for a Kaby-Lake X CPU, you get less (16 I believe)
if you want hardware raid, you have to order and pay extra for a dongle to plug into your motherboard.
the socket 2066 isn't used in any other products, so right now going this platform has no current upgrade paths.
In al honesty, unless you're a gaming enthousiast, who understands overclocking and the limitations of the new platform, I recommend to avoid it and go with the traditional Kaby Lake or Ryzen options
the base model +ssd is the way to go if you want a silent and efficient machine
