Another way to look at it is, the ps4, while making lots of noise, would still run cooler than the iMac whilst gaming. If you worried about a machine that cost 300 bucks, just think how much you'd worry at 3000! I would get an Xbox 1, they run super quiet and save more money till the refresh later this year. That would keep your gaming needs down till you get a gaming pc next year.
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.
Possible Imac 5k i7 4gb GPU Purchase. Does it overheat?
- Thread starter Yourbigpalal83
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been using the 5K imac for the past 6 month and it's been nothing short of amazing..
I'm a video editor and it runs 10 hours a day everyday handling 4k vision from an FS7 and plenty of motion graphics work as well. Yes the fans kick in when you start pushing but it's never too loud.. It has been so good at work I just purchased one for my home as well..
I'm a video editor and it runs 10 hours a day everyday handling 4k vision from an FS7 and plenty of motion graphics work as well. Yes the fans kick in when you start pushing but it's never too loud.. It has been so good at work I just purchased one for my home as well..
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
It seems there's two groups of people... Those who worry about benchmarks on forums and those who actually own it and just happily use their machines.
Thing about buying these iMacs is that there is a HUGE range of money you can lay out for them and your experience may not range much different from the base model to the high end model depending on how you use it. There are people buying these computer new under $2,000 and some dropping $3,600 for a max out model so you want to be careful on knowing what you need because you can save over a $1000 and have basically the same computing experience.
Laugh as you like, you can dwell just happily in the Reality Distortion Field, it's warm and cozy. But, as with the internet filter bubble, there is always a risk of waking up from the comfy nirvana.It seems there's two groups of people... Those who worry about benchmarks on forums and those who actually own it and just happily use their machines.
Fact is, there are people having bought one and returned it (Andy9l has wrote much on the issue, but it seems you are not interested in differentiated assessments…). There is a lot of good analysis in the thread started by Fenn, but most people simply love simple 'truths' and even go as far as ridiculing or discrediting those who ask questions, the round pigs in the square holes.
I didn't buy the RiMac because of past experience with overheating iMacs (the 2008 model, I think) and with very very loud Macs (the PowerMac G4, the one with the PSU exchange supply program), and because a number of people who have a lot of experience with hardware have a raised eyebrow wrt the maxed-out RiMac…
Maybe I should therefore not contribute to threads asking for buying advice. However, as I am in the market for a new computer as well, I think my assessment might contribute to the decision of the thread starter...
Hey I'm quite familiar with this machine I'm lucky enough to have owned one and sold it and bought some thing closer to my needs. so big thing you need to now about this machine it is built with Photo editors and movie buffs in mind that is it GAMER'S BEWARE this Machine is not for you. apple have made a big mistake jumping the gun and bringing out a 5K display when 4K is just getting started. the GPU's could handle 4K output but with some software witchcraft lol apple where able to push a 2GB and 4GB card to run at 5K which i would say causes a bit more heat in the first place. one mistake people are making including my self is using these 5k iMacs for gaming and thats where the over heating kicks in big time the display looks dog ugly when it is down sampled to 1080p but that is the highest i could get my games to run at with out it dropping to 40FPS. so i when back to my good old reliable Mac Pro 4.1 invested in EVGA GTX 980 SC 4GB card and now i can use my 4K LG display display again and all is right with the world. really my Mac Pro is a few years old now and it destroys the 5K in performance because that display is the only thing holding it back they should have went 4K
As someone who is also very familiar with this machine having owned one since it was released, I disagree with most of what you have said above. I respect your opinion but just wanted to add some balance in case anyone comes along and sees what you wrote and thinks that it's undisputed fact. It's not, it's just one person's opinion. The same can be said of the following.
So, firstly I'd be interested to learn how long you kept your machine before you sold it? I'd also be interested to know if it was a base level machine or if you went for the upgraded CPU or GPU? Mine is the 4.0GHZ CPU with upgraded GPU, 1TB SSD and 24GB RAM and it is an absolute beast!
The iMac has always been, and continues to be a desktop machine for "everyone". It's the core consumer product line of machine as opposed to the entry level Mac Mini and the professional level Mac Pro. That said, the iMac is so powerful these days that a great many professionals are also using it instead of the Mac Pro. It is most definitely not only intended for photo editors and movie buffs.
Additionally, this machine is a very capable gaming machine and I use it regularly for X-Plane 10 and Elite: Dangerous and play these at 1440p for the most part. I play some other games as well and although I would be the first to say I'm not a hard core gamer, this machine is without doubt the most powerful games machine I have ever owned and handles anything I throw at it, in resolutions well above HD.
Apple didn't make a big mistake bringing out a 5K display. If you understand the concept of hi dpi (or retina) displays, you will know that Apple needed a display with twice the horizontal and twice the vertical resolution of their previous 27" thunderbolt display in order to make the jump to retina resolution. So, 5120x2880 instead of 2560x1440. Also, if you want to edit 4k video then having a 5k display is very handy as it lets you have toolbars etc around the edges of the full 4k edit window. So this was no mistake but it was certainly a big shock to competitors who were utterly blown away by the fact Apple could sell a top quality 5K display at a price point of $1999 and throw in a free computer!
I don't understand why you say the 5K display looks "dog ugly" at 1080p because I certainly don't have that problem and I used to work for both IBM and another company who remanufactured LCD displays where I specialised in testing LCD display quality. Ideally try to run at 1440p as that is exactly half the native resolution but it works just fine at 1080p in my experience.
So, you're saying that an early 2009 Mac Pro 4,1 "destroys the 5K in performance"? Hmm, I find that a stretch to believe given that the 5K iMac can beat the latest Mac Pro in many of the benchmarks, never mind a 6 year old model. What CPU(s) do you have in your 4,1? Have a look on Geekbench http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks The 4GHz iMac is top on single core and you'd need to go a long way down that list to find the 2009 Mac Pro. Even on multi-core benchmarks the iMac holds its own pretty well and is only beaten by the 8 core and above Mac Pros. Given that very few applications can make use of more than 2-4 cores efficiently the single core performance is generally more important.
Anyway, I'm not trying to suggest that your Mac Pro is a bad machine, quite the opposite actually, it's a great machine and it sounds like you're as happy with it as I am with my 5K iMac. But just because you didn't gel with the iMac doesn't make it a bad machine either and many people would in fact find it to be the ideal machine for them to buy.
Does the high end iMac 5k throttle down when gaming? If so its not an "everyone's" machine.
I have a mid level 5k and I am happy but only because of my low price point ($1800). If I paid over 3K I would be very disappointed.
I have a mid level 5k and I am happy but only because of my low price point ($1800). If I paid over 3K I would be very disappointed.
As someone who is also very familiar with this machine having owned one since it was released, I disagree with most of what you have said above. I respect your opinion but just wanted to add some balance in case anyone comes along and sees what you wrote and thinks that it's undisputed fact. It's not, it's just one person's opinion. The same can be said of the following.
So, firstly I'd be interested to learn how long you kept your machine before you sold it? I'd also be interested to know if it was a base level machine or if you went for the upgraded CPU or GPU? Mine is the 4.0GHZ CPU with upgraded GPU, 1TB SSD and 24GB RAM and it is an absolute beast!
The iMac has always been, and continues to be a desktop machine for "everyone". It's the core consumer product line of machine as opposed to the entry level Mac Mini and the professional level Mac Pro. That said, the iMac is so powerful these days that a great many professionals are also using it instead of the Mac Pro. It is most definitely not only intended for photo editors and movie buffs.
Additionally, this machine is a very capable gaming machine and I use it regularly for X-Plane 10 and Elite: Dangerous and play these at 1440p for the most part. I play some other games as well and although I would be the first to say I'm not a hard core gamer, this machine is without doubt the most powerful games machine I have ever owned and handles anything I throw at it, in resolutions well above HD.
Apple didn't make a big mistake bringing out a 5K display. If you understand the concept of hi dpi (or retina) displays, you will know that Apple needed a display with twice the horizontal and twice the vertical resolution of their previous 27" thunderbolt display in order to make the jump to retina resolution. So, 5120x2880 instead of 2560x1440. Also, if you want to edit 4k video then having a 5k display is very handy as it lets you have toolbars etc around the edges of the full 4k edit window. So this was no mistake but it was certainly a big shock to competitors who were utterly blown away by the fact Apple could sell a top quality 5K display at a price point of $1999 and throw in a free computer!
I don't understand why you say the 5K display looks "dog ugly" at 1080p because I certainly don't have that problem and I used to work for both IBM and another company who remanufactured LCD displays where I specialised in testing LCD display quality. Ideally try to run at 1440p as that is exactly half the native resolution but it works just fine at 1080p in my experience.
So, you're saying that an early 2009 Mac Pro 4,1 "destroys the 5K in performance"? Hmm, I find that a stretch to believe given that the 5K iMac can beat the latest Mac Pro in many of the benchmarks, never mind a 6 year old model. What CPU(s) do you have in your 4,1? Have a look on Geekbench http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks The 4GHz iMac is top on single core and you'd need to go a long way down that list to find the 2009 Mac Pro. Even on multi-core benchmarks the iMac holds its own pretty well and is only beaten by the 8 core and above Mac Pros. Given that very few applications can make use of more than 2-4 cores efficiently the single core performance is generally more important.
Anyway, I'm not trying to suggest that your Mac Pro is a bad machine, quite the opposite actually, it's a great machine and it sounds like you're as happy with it as I am with my 5K iMac. But just because you didn't gel with the iMac doesn't make it a bad machine either and many people would in fact find it to be the ideal machine for them to buy.
Honestly I've never noticed any throttling but equally honestly I'm sure it does in some circumstances to keep temperatures within spec. However, even if thermal management is taking place this is no cause for alarm or concern because it's perfectly normal.
We're talking about the GPU here but if you look at the CPU for a moment, thermal management takes place all the time to give maximum performance (turbo clock speed) in short bursts but for sustained loads the CPU speed will drop back to the continuous rated speed. As you may be aware, the CPU on most computers is predominantly idle or close to idle and being able to run the clock at a higher speed for short bursts gives the responsiveness of a faster machine without exceeding thermal specifications.
Going back to the GPU, a similar pattern will be seen. Under sustained gaming loads, the GPU temperature will reach the safe limit fairly quickly so any initial burst of (turbo) speed will reduce to the level the GPU can sustain continuously. I've played Elite: Dangerous for hours at a time and have never noticed any sort of variation in GPU performance. Once I have chosen a set of graphics settings, I don't need to reduce these later or anything like that.
You'll notice I placed quote marks around "everyone" to show that I understand this is not to be taken literally. What it means is that it tries to be a machine for "everyone" but ultimately that leads to a compromise and some edge-cases won't be adequately served. Hardcore gamers are one such edge-case. However, I wouldn't be surprised if some such hardcore gamers might spend a similar amount of money on a gaming rig.
Lastly, I'm a professional web developer and I work as a consultant through my own company so there are a lot of benefits (inc. various tax reliefs and discounts) to me getting the high end iMac that might not apply for a purely domestic or hobbyist user. I also plan to keep the machine for 3-5 years (probably longer) so I'll get those benefits over a long period of time. My first iMac was a 24" 2007 model and is still going strong 8 years later albeit with an SSD upgrade.
Glad to hear you are enjoying your iMac. I'm sure that 90% of the time you would see little benefit from the high end model.