Exactly. Its still somewhere around the top five performers. To call it a 'mid-range' card is ridiculous. The 860M GTX is a mid-range card, and its around 30% slower than the M290X
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.
Retina 5K iMac is going to lag like crazy
- Thread starter KuchiKopi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. Its still somewhere around the top five performers. To call it a 'mid-range' card is ridiculous. The 860M GTX is a mid-range card, and its around 30% slower than the M290X
Even though im not a AIO fan i was ready to pull the triger on one if it had the 980m . Now im not really sure if its worth it or not
Or if its a better option going with the nMP.
Dont play games. All i do is After Effects (no GPU needed except Ray tracing) FCPX and Apple Motion 5 (GPU hungry) and PS
The display looks gorgeous, but if that 295x is the same as the 780m then it would be a better purchase the 2013 model with the 780m
Wow apple really knows how to confuse us!!
at least im confused on this one.
(The M mini was a great disappointment specially on the CPU side of things!!)
Or if its a better option going with the nMP.
Dont play games. All i do is After Effects (no GPU needed except Ray tracing) FCPX and Apple Motion 5 (GPU hungry) and PS
The display looks gorgeous, but if that 295x is the same as the 780m then it would be a better purchase the 2013 model with the 780m
Wow apple really knows how to confuse us!!
at least im confused on this one.(The M mini was a great disappointment specially on the CPU side of things!!)
I'm no graphics guru, but after reading a few online reviews of the 980M vs the M295X, the difference is not quite as large as some posters here are making it sound. The performance of the 980M is, of course, better, but it's not like twice as good. One comprehensive review rated them at a "10" (980M) and a "9" (M295X) in relation to each other. This makes me more inclined to buy the new Retina iMac.
As an engineer who fixes these things I have concerns about just how hot that gpu is going to get when fcpx uses that AMD for acceleration and drive that many pixels. They were always going to use AMD for opencl
Knowing just how marvellous thermally the Mac Pro is when pushed really, really hard the combination of Dell's new 27 inch with the same panel as the iMac and the 6,1 seems rather more appealing in terms of thermodynamics and acoustics and reliability in the long run.
Knowing just how marvellous thermally the Mac Pro is when pushed really, really hard the combination of Dell's new 27 inch with the same panel as the iMac and the 6,1 seems rather more appealing in terms of thermodynamics and acoustics and reliability in the long run.
Last edited:
A 5K monitor with a free computer, kinda awesome. Even I could aff.. no wait, never mind.
Well, maybe next year *pout*
Well, maybe next year *pout*
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1802008/ <I guess everyone who has posted there is uniformed and stupid?
Of course not - not cautious. There has been over a year of discussions about the r9 over in the Mac Pro forum with engineers getting them to work on the classic towers for fcpx etc and they do run hotter than the equivalent nvidia. Neither AMD or Nvidia have moved from a 28 micron silicon process in four years and both need to, especially AMD.
Only problem is that apple have used all of tsmc 20 micron foundries capacity to make A8 processors they have nowhere to make a die shrink which will run a lot cooler. Only Intel has the fab capacity.
If you're getting AppleCare with your new retina enjoy it, but it's at the bleeding edge of technology and the thermal envelope so be aware that problems may arise in the future.
I recall the last time I was concerned - in 2011 when they launched the sandy bridge cpu and gpu in the Macintosh range. A pair of very hot chips. 2/3 years on we are well aware what has happened to these Macs. Perhaps when they fit the broadwell cpu inside this chassis like they did with the 2012 and ivy bridge it might give them more room but that's no sympathy to those who may have a busted GPU.
Last edited:
A 5k top of the line retina display, being powered by a... mid-range laptop GPU?
lol.
so misinformed.
I have zero interest in 256GB. I separate the fusion disk. I use the 128GB SSD for Windows 7 boot, the other 1TB for games. And then I boot OS X off Thunderbolt SSD.
But thanks for telling me what I should "of" went with.
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
5k tech is still in the early stages yet. Certainly no need to jump aboard this ship just yet.
I'm pretty certain this will become main stream in about 2-3 years tho when it falls in price. It's curretly too costly and there is very little 4k content out there. 1080p video was just about taking over before this.
I have to wait and see but I think you would be better getting a nMP instead. A 5k iMac should be coming with at least a desktop level GPU.
I'm pretty certain this will become main stream in about 2-3 years tho when it falls in price. It's curretly too costly and there is very little 4k content out there. 1080p video was just about taking over before this.
I have to wait and see but I think you would be better getting a nMP instead. A 5k iMac should be coming with at least a desktop level GPU.
People are comparing their experience with the first retina mbp on 13 inch, which had a intel gpu, these cards that have discrete GPUs have NO PROBLEM driving 5k displays.
Now any gaming? Nope. No where close. You'll need tri SLI 980 gtx for gaming on 5k. Web browsing? no problem.
Now any gaming? Nope. No where close. You'll need tri SLI 980 gtx for gaming on 5k. Web browsing? no problem.
I think it is silly to think that you won't be able to play any games on it. Now I wouldn't expect games to take full advantage of the screen because they aren't built for it but you should be able to play games relatively well.
The freaking out is absolutely ridiculous. Get your hands on the device before writing it off.
----------
I never got why people are so obsessed with gaming at native resolution. Just scale it to 1440p and call it a day.
Enjoy your machine! I wish I had the funds to be uninformed and stupid.
Thanks! I'm a total resolution junkie, so this is going to blow my mind. I know it. 4x the resolution....
*giddy*
If it's engineering well, which I assume it was, it will have internal thermal management to prevent this. There would be lawsuits if they made a chip that was destined to "melt".
And Gav, Mr. Engineer, heat transfer is not so much thermodynamics, it is formally considered as time-dependent energy transport. Sure the component might have the potential to get hot, but whether it actually does depends on how well Apple designed the heat sink around the unit. I'm waiting for real-life demonstrations before claiming that they poorly engineered their computer.
Remember how warm the old iMacs were? And then when they released the new design and people thought they were way too thin to run cool and they actually did and were way cooler than the previous ones? People need to calm down. They're not going to release a machine with a GPU it can't handle. Just look at the new Mac Pro, Apple engineers know what they're doing when it comes to heat management.
The R9 M295x is an unreleased card that's only available for the retina iMac at the moment, so it's hard to speculate its performance until one really experiences it.
Who knows, it could even outperform the GTX 980M.
Until we get benchmarks, we won't know whether it's an underperforming card or not.
Who knows, it could even outperform the GTX 980M.
Until we get benchmarks, we won't know whether it's an underperforming card or not.
The old m290x was based on rather old Pitcairn core, the m295x is using the brand new Tonga XT core. It's sort of like 2 generations newer, it's not just a slight bump from the m290x.
According to Apple's website it says the m295x has up to 3.5 teraflops of computing power, which the desktop version of Radeon 285 had 3.2 teraflops. The 285 has 1792 stream processors while the 285x (Tonga XT core) has the full 2048 stream processors and roughly 3.5 teraflops of computing power.
So I'm guessing the m295x is nearly identical to the soon to be released desktop Radeon 285x. If true, then the m295x would be more or less equivalent to the nVidia 970m, but no where near the 980m in performance.
I have zero interest in 256GB. I separate the fusion disk. I use the 128GB SSD for Windows 7 boot, the other 1TB for games. And then I boot OS X off Thunderbolt SSD.
But thanks for telling me what I should "of" went with.
Is booting OS X off Thunderbolt SSD just as fast as booting off internal SSD (pure SSD drive)
I didn't know that you can totally separate the fusion drive like that, this is an interesting setup!
Honestly I don't know what you're rumbling on about, mate.
I trust that the Apple engineer's know what they are doing. I have heard of the old adage that says to get Rev. "B" of products but meh - :shrugs:
As another poster so aptly put it
