I think there is no denying that these 2017 iMacs are, internally and port wise, a massive leap over all previous iMacs especially in the GPU department.
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 think there is no denying that these 2017 iMacs are, internally and port wise, a massive leap over all previous iMacs especially in the GPU department.
They are a good upgrade but i would have waited fall to have the same cooling as imac pro.
Thanks for the feedback, one follow up... What specific OS do you run apparently Metal didn't become final until the later stages of Sierra.
I don't understand how there can be such variability in geekbench scores. I have the late 2015 Retina iMac and my geekbench score is 14,344 for CPU and 81313 for Compute. The average score on geekbench (referenced in this article) is 12,593 and 76,887 respectively.
I guess it shouldn't matter, because they are comparing averages to averages, but something is weird because according to this my i5 6600 3.3 is performing better than an i5 6700 3.5.
I would take the claims of dramatic improvement with at least a few grains of salt.
Edit: It appears that the latest version of Geekbench produces higher scores than previous versions. So, I hope they are looking at apples to apples (sorry for the pun) with these scores since the new scores are likely using the latest version of geekbench and the previous models may be using older versions.
I guess it shouldn't matter, because they are comparing averages to averages, but something is weird because according to this my i5 6600 3.3 is performing better than an i5 6700 3.5.
I would take the claims of dramatic improvement with at least a few grains of salt.
Edit: It appears that the latest version of Geekbench produces higher scores than previous versions. So, I hope they are looking at apples to apples (sorry for the pun) with these scores since the new scores are likely using the latest version of geekbench and the previous models may be using older versions.
Last edited:
As a designer and retoucher I need that black bezel so I can concentrate on my work and not everything in back of the display. For me, the black bezel is essential.
Virtually no bezel and less chin is what literally everyone would be happy with.
Toss in the space gray coloring to add as well.
Been saying that for 3 years now. I decided to take the plunge from my Late 2013 non-Retina model to the Mid 2017 model since I can't hold out on 5K any longer. The fact that they unveiled the iMac Pro in the same exact design (with space gray) when that would have been a perfect opportunity for them to tease a new design for pros, makes me feel like they'll be sticking with this design a couple years longer.
I'd imagine even the slight manufacturing adjustment to cut in Thunderbolt 3 ports was an investment for Apple to some degree that they'll want to get more than 12 months of use out of. Plus, I doubt they want to ruffle the feathers of iMac Pro buyers who will have just dropped $5,000+ on an older design.
If I'm wrong and Apple unveils some gorgeous new redesign next year that I absolutely have to have I'll just sell my 2017 for a pretty penny and get the new one. But if I'm right, I won't be waiting another year+ to upgrade to 5K.
There's always the bezels
Always, always, always the bezels
Always, always, always the bezels
Last edited:
I know. You and I have been talking about this for quite some time now in the iMac forum.
But since Apple is poised to release a brand spanking new display to go alongside their new modular Mac Pro, it's another opportunity for them to release a new design that trims the lard fat off those bezels. And if it's anything like past iterations, it's design will match the iMac.
But in any case, congrats on your new machine. It seems like quite the nice upgrade.
Last edited:
Yes we have. I was certain Apple wouldn't have done an I/O change without a case redesign but I was wrong. Same design or not, there's still no other display that comes close to the 5K iMac in quality and it's now even brighter and better. Couldn't resist.I know. You and I have been talking about this for quite some time now in the iMac forum.
But also don't forget that Apple is poised to release a brand spanking new display to go alongside their new modular Mac Pro. They just have to release a new design that trims the lard fat off those bezels for the new display and if it's anything like past iterations, it's design will match the iMac.
But in any case, congrats on your new machine. It seems like quite the nice upgrade.
As for the Mac Pro and Apple's specific wording of a "pro display" next year, I think it is independent of the iMac because it seems like a reverse course of a decision made last year to get out of the standalone display business. Perhaps whatever they come up with will trickle down to the iMac in the future but I don't think they'll necessarily be released in tandem. We'll see, but I'm tired of trying to predict the future of the Mac since it has become very unpredictable in recent years with all the focus on other products. I'm ready to just enjoy the best of what is here and now.
That sure sounds good. My college is planning to get these at the end of July for their video editing lab, to replace the existing 24" early 2009 Core 2 Duo iMacs currently in the lab, especially with the recent refresh to the line. We already have a couple of 27" Retina iMacs (previous models) used in the Fine Arts building (where the video editing lab also is; this is generally the only place on the campus where they have Macs set up.)
Which is really only a problem because it's so thin. Which is ironic because it's theoretically too thin to accommodate your toast. Which means it's also ineffective as a toaster.
Wait, Apple cares about compute performance?! I thought they just cared about margins - at least, that's what it's looked like to everybody for the past 5 years...
It is important to note the OpenCL benchmark for the trashcan MP only include one of the GPUs. So in real world usage where applications can utilize both GPUs the trashcan will still easily beat the new iMac GPU. The trashcan MP was not a bad computer and now that they are on sale might still be a decent option.
WRT CPU performance, only the top of the line one does. It's much more expensive than the iMacs it's beating. The lower-end ones are slower and cost more than iMacs. Also, WRT graphics, the top of the line Mac Pro with its expensive FirePro D700 GPUs is still similar to high-mid-range consumer-grade GPUs from the past few years. Slower than the cheap GTX 1060 my brother stuck in his 2009 Mac Pro.
And this is a tower that doesn't come with a 5K display.
[doublepost=1498098893][/doublepost]
It's not even an opinion. The Mac Pro is slower than equivalently priced hardware.
Yes, you could buy a trashcan MP right now, but you would be an absolute idiot in doing so, since the iMac Pro is just around the corner. Plus, I must reiterate my point from earlier of the fact that the trashcan MP does not have TB3 ports on it, unlike all of the new iMacs and the iMac Pro, meaning that dual D700s' performance will most certainly become a moot point after the release of High Sierra and eGPUs becoming more mainstream for those users. I honestly am expecting the iMac Pro to blow the trashcan MP out of the water in every single category, though using newer hardware in every category kind of makes that seem obvious. I'm surprised Apple isn't just phasing out the MP line and outright replacing it with the iMac Pro altogether, since it seems like it would be powerful enough to do so.
Last edited:
I just sold my late 2013 27 inch model and currently waiting for 2017 27 inch with i5 and Radeon 580... can't wait to see results of that!
I highly doubt you will get a redesign then either because the iMac Pro comes out in December and it has the same form factor.
[doublepost=1498116680][/doublepost]
Just goes to show that all of the waiting for these new Macs was worth it. Looks like these are performance powerhouses and this also shows that the "old" 2013 Mac Pro is still a great option. I think people sometimes want upgrades for the sake of upgrades.
I for one use an Early 2008 Mac Pro, haha. It does what I need it to do. On the other hand, I do upgrade iPhone every year, so I guess I'm just as bad as the rest of them.
I still use my 4S.
Last edited:
