Retina 5K iMac is going to lag like crazy

WilliamG said:
I think that's more to do with the LCD technology (as in, forget the GPU - just how are these pixels going to "perform?") vs the actual GPU performance...
Click to expand...

Yes, it appears so.

However, there was some talk about the reason there is no 5K Cinema display is that Apple had to do a fair bit of customization on the GPU/software end to make it all work smoothly, which of course is not possible with a standalone display.
Add to that the marketing fluff about the new timing controller, and I sort of concluded that perhaps Apple had to integrate that part more tightly with the GPU and software.

Again, that would not be possible with a standalone display.

But I am just a layman trying to make sense of it all, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.

edit:
Anandtech talks some more about the display:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8623/hands-on-apples-imac-with-retina-display
 
Last edited:
Gav Mack said:
I agree its the wrong title but the sentiments are pretty sound.

It probably won't lag like crazy, but I can cite the 2012 mbp retina on launch and the iPad 3 as certainly being problematical as far as scrolling is concerned. The 2012 retina in case being the first of its generation of bleeding edge technology just like this retina iMac is. There were also many issues with the quality of the display on the retina mbp's also.

It will certainly get hot with opencl acceleration on the AMD using FCPX that I'm pretty sure of. I'm wondering just how hot when it gets past a year going onto 3 years!
Click to expand...

I'd bet on Apple, honestly. They've learned a lot from the previously-released hardware, surely?

I'm going to bet on Apple, personally. If it doesn't perform, it's easy to return to the store.
 
zephonic said:
Yes, it appears so.

However, there was some talk about the reason there is no 5K Cinema display is that Apple had to do a fair bit of customization on the GPU/software end to make it all work smoothly, which of course is not possible with a standalone display.
Add to that the marketing fluff about the new timing controller, and I sort of concluded that perhaps Apple had to integrate that part more tightly with the GPU and software.

Again, that would not be possible with a standalone display.

But I am just a layman trying to make sense of it all, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.

edit:
Anandtech talks some more about the display:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8623/hands-on-apples-imac-with-retina-display
Click to expand...

No thunderbolt 3 yet. Thunderbolt 2 can only do up to 4k
 
Georgio said:
One persons 30 minutes playing around isn't what I would call benchmark.
Let's not make this personal as anyone less experienced than I might take that as a direct confrontation?
Click to expand...

You are the one who attacked everyone who think different than you about this machine, with an uninformed opinion nonetheless. The guy at least have played with it. Just the iMac isn't for you doesn't mean anyone who want it is stupid or uninformed. You should grow up already.
 
Georgio said:
Well there goes my money; I'll stick with my existing iMac thanks.

No one is going to buy this iMac except the uninformed and stupid.

Apple going with this GPU with this display is the biggest mistake they've ever made.
Click to expand...

Hah! Irony and instant karma rolled into one. I love this post.
 
Georgio said:
Well there goes my money; I'll stick with my existing iMac thanks.

No one is going to buy this iMac except the uninformed and stupid.

Apple going with this GPU with this display is the biggest mistake they've ever made.
Click to expand...

You do realize they still sell non-retina iMacs, right?

Maybe this product isn't for you, but it's sure for many others including myself.
 
Deasnutz said:
Lag? In what? Games? Very small subset of customers buy an iMac for games. I hope at least.
Click to expand...

Yup, thats me. Its what I was waiting for...I have ab-so-lute-ly no professional reason for a computer (except the ones at work, I'm an air traffic controller). I do, however, keep computers for a long time. I'm currently typing this on a 3,1 (2008) Mac Pro that I've upgraded.

I am waiting on the benchmarks before pulling the trigger but I have also begun to seriously look at building a CustoMac. I don't even play the most demanding games but I want to play them at max setting for many years. If the R295X is the real deal, I'm in for a max config. If not, I'm probably going to try my hand and build my own....what could possibly go wrong.
;)
 
AsprineTm said:
For every one who is doubting the GPU...
Nvidia 980M 3,189 GFLOPS
AMD R9 M295X 3,5 GFLOPS

I Think it will do just fine.

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2622/geforce-gtx-980m.html
Click to expand...

GLOPS DO NOT compare across architectures.

780 ti = 5050 GFLOPS (at base 876 mhz). However the 780 ti runs at 960+ mhz

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7492/the-geforce-gtx-780-ti-review/15

Therefore the 780 ti is a 2880 x 2 x 960 = 5.5 TFLOP card.

The 980 is 4.6 GFLOP base card and at running frequencies a 2048 x 2 x 1216 mhz (see AT review) a 5 TFLOP card.

The 290X is a 5.6 TFLOP card, the 980 has no problems beating it by 15%.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_980/26.html

The 980 is more powerful GFLOP for GFLOP than the 780 ti or any tonga chip.

Furthermore you have the BASE GFLOPS for the 980m. Boost will be higher (3.45 GFLOPS).
 
gnasher729 said:
$2,499 was what the Macintosh cost in 1984. 512 x 342 pixels. The iMac has 84 times more, and they are all in color instead of black and white! 128KB Ram, the iMac has 65,536 times more. 400KB drive. The iMac has 2.5 million times more. The Macintosh did about 1,000 floating point operations per second, the iMac does 3.5 TFlops, which is 3.5 billion times more.
Click to expand...

So, what you are saying is that for the same amount of money as a Macintosh in 1984 I am getting a better computer? Brilliant. Thanks for that.:D
 
gnasher729 said:
$2,499 was what the Macintosh cost in 1984. 512 x 342 pixels. The iMac has 84 times more, and they are all in color instead of black and white! 128KB Ram, the iMac has 65,536 times more. 400KB drive. The iMac has 2.5 million times more. The Macintosh did about 1,000 floating point operations per second, the iMac does 3.5 TFlops, which is 3.5 billion times more.
Click to expand...

Add in inflation and the 128k Mac cost a lot more.
 
I think the big problem here for some people is not understanding that these 5K iMacs are not just running everything at 5K but they are then scaling them down to 2560x1440 on the fly for the HiDPI mode. There's a lot of processing work going on to pull this off.

These are going to be gorgeous displays to look at but I'd be skeptical buying a first generation 5K Retina iMac especially with a brand new OS. There are rMBP users complaining of UI lag in Yosemite where they didn't have it in Mavericks.

I can only imagine that if a 4 million display is experiencing UI lag on a Retina Macbook on Yosemite then a 14 million display is going to be really something to look out for. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't think gaming on these 5k iMacs will be doable at full resolution.
 
WilliamG said:
I'd bet on Apple, honestly. They've learned a lot from the previously-released hardware, surely?

I'm going to bet on Apple, personally. If it doesn't perform, it's easy to return to the store.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping I don't have to find out they haven't learned in 2015/17. It's one of those cutting edge Macs that AppleCare is a necessity rather than an option in my humblest..
 
Georgio said:
I couldn't agree more, a 980M would have made the perfect iMac in every respect, an absolute classic machine which would have been regarded as a benchmark for the iMac hierachy.

i guess money talks louder than sanity at Apple Towers...
Click to expand...

Cost, quantities and availability talk at Apple Towers. You know, those pesky things that all need to be in place for one to stay in the business of manufacturing and selling computers.
 
Woodcrest64 said:
I think the big problem here for some people is not understanding that these 5K iMacs are not just running everything at 5K but they are then scaling them down to 2560x1440 on the fly for the HiDPI mode. There's a lot of processing work going on to pull this off.

These are going to be gorgeous displays to look at but I'd be skeptical buying a first generation 5K Retina iMac especially with a brand new OS. There are rMBP users complaining of UI lag in Yosemite where they didn't have it in Mavericks.

I can only imagine that if a 4 million display is experiencing UI lag on a Retina Macbook on Yosemite then a 14 million display is going to be really something to look out for. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't think gaming on these 5k iMacs will be doable at full resolution.
Click to expand...

No, the screen is always running at 5K. Just like the MacBook Pro with retina is always running at 2880 x 1800. It can up or downsample the resolution and fit it on the 5K or the 2880 x 1800 resolution.

If it ran it at a smaller resolution it would use less of the screen in doing so.
 
Woodcrest64 said:
I think the big problem here for some people is not understanding that these 5K iMacs are not just running everything at 5K but they are then scaling them down to 2560x1440 on the fly for the HiDPI mode. There's a lot of processing work going on to pull this off.

These are going to be gorgeous displays to look at but I'd be skeptical buying a first generation 5K Retina iMac especially with a brand new OS. There are rMBP users complaining of UI lag in Yosemite where they didn't have it in Mavericks.

I can only imagine that if a 4 million display is experiencing UI lag on a Retina Macbook on Yosemite then a 14 million display is going to be really something to look out for. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't think gaming on these 5k iMacs will be doable at full resolution.
Click to expand...

I have a first generation rMBP and I have no lag. I upgraded to Yosemite as soon as it was available. And again, you get 14 days to try it out and read the professional reviews that are surely coming (iFixit already posted theirs).

----------
Gav Mack said:
I'm hoping I don't have to find out they haven't learned in 2015/17. It's one of those cutting edge Macs that AppleCare is a necessity rather than an option in my humblest..
Click to expand...

Yes, we get it, buy apple care. You can keep repeating it. I always do and at $119 after student discount (and $149 for full price), there isn't a lot of reason not to do applecare.
 
Pressure said:
No, the screen is always running at 5K. Just like the MacBook Pro with retina is always running at 2880 x 1800. It can up or downsample the resolution and fit it on the 5K or the 2880 x 1800 resolution.

If it ran it at a smaller resolution it would use less of the screen in doing so.
Click to expand...

lol. Yes you are correct. I meant to say that. It just came out wrong. You just don't use it the screen in native resolution. Its in HiDPI mode like you said. :)

----------
leenak said:
I have a first generation rMBP and I have no lag. I upgraded to Yosemite as soon as it was available. And again, you get 14 days to try it out and read the professional reviews that are surely coming (iFixit already posted theirs).

----------



Yes, we get it, buy apple care. You can keep repeating it. I always do and at $119 after student discount (and $149 for full price), there isn't a lot of reason not to do applecare.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't have any lag in Mavericks. I'm glad to hear you're not having any issues with Yosemite. Did you do a clean install?
 
This thread is the dumbest thread ever.

Apple has _never_ released a product that "lagged like crazy."
Nor would they.
 
Woodcrest64 said:
I think the big problem here for some people is not understanding that these 5K iMacs are not just running everything at 5K but they are then scaling them down to 2560x1440 on the fly for the HiDPI mode. There's a lot of processing work going on to pull this off.

These are going to be gorgeous displays to look at but I'd be skeptical buying a first generation 5K Retina iMac especially with a brand new OS. There are rMBP users complaining of UI lag in Yosemite where they didn't have it in Mavericks.

I can only imagine that if a 4 million display is experiencing UI lag on a Retina Macbook on Yosemite then a 14 million display is going to be really something to look out for. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I don't think gaming on these 5k iMacs will be doable at full resolution.
Click to expand...
Again.

You're comparing Intel integrated graphics with discrete gpus. Iris is no match to discrete gpus of this generation. It'll have no problem running Yosemite easily at 60hz/60fps.

You guys are forgetting. Out of the box the iMac supports an external 4K monitor.

Gaming? Out of question. Maybe if you're running it at 1440p. Even then it's dicey, light gaming like civ 5? No problem.
 
I had my rMBP hooked up to a 4k monitor and it worked quite well. I imagine that 5k with the iMac's higher specs would do fine.
 
I just told you already...at 1440p everything max Diablo 3 the m295x run fixed on 60fps when the 780M in town has 58-59fps and in battles down at 40fps ..so
the difference is real but i don't know how much, because the fps was fixed on 60fps for 295x.

And Yosemite is a delight to be used on a retina display
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top