Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Retina iMac Graphics

umzyi

umzyi

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 21, 2011
264
70
UK
Dear all

I am looking to buy the top end base model of 27 inch rimac. I am in dire need of your advice please. These are the specs I am looking to get:

3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i5
8GB RAM (May upgrade later on myself to 16GB)
1TB Fusion Drive
AMD Radeon R9 M290X 2GB GDDR5

I don't do any gaming at all. I mainly use it for general purpose like internet, watching movies, MS Office and sometime I do encode a couple of home videos to another formats using handbrake, nothing major.

The confusion I am facing is whether I should get M290X or M295X? How can i justify myself of spending extra for 295X card. A lot of people have share their experience about poor graphics performance on both of these cards but my question is whether the lag is due to Yosemite or the actual graphic cards? Since I am not going to be gaming will M290X will suffice me now and in future (2-3 years)?

I am currently running 10.10.4 public beta on my late 2013 retina MBPro with 8GB ram and I have no lag whatsoever and very silent fans.

Thus, those of you who have retina iMac, help me choose and also share your experience of running Yosemite 10.10.3 in terms of system performance.
 
No problem

Hello,

if you're not doing any gaming, you won't see a difference at all. All the problems introduced with Yosemite are software related, so at best you're looking at a few minutes shaved off the waiting time when you're creating videos.

Just make sure you get a Fusion Drive/SSD, and you're good to go for the next years. Good luck!
 
For the purposes you've described, your proposed spec (incl. graphics card) will be fine. I would also upgrade the RAM immediately, then you'll be all set.
 
TechZeke said:
For Internet, Office, and Handbrake? You're joking right?
Click to expand...

Umm - and Yosemite.

So no, I'm not joking. With only a few apps running, you can easily get close to or beyond 8GB of memory used.

Upgrading beyond the 8GB standard RAM is in no way a bad idea.
 
loekf said:
Because you can ? I had a 16 GB in my old Windows PC, so I upgraded to 32 GB immediately. 8 GB RAM in such an expensive machine feels a bit... ehh.. unimpressive ;-)
Click to expand...

I get you exactly :cool:

iConnected said:
Umm - and Yosemite.

So no, I'm not joking. With only a few apps running, you can easily get close to or beyond 8GB of memory used.

Upgrading beyond the 8GB standard RAM is in no way a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Clearly you're unfamiliar with memory management in OS X.

On Macs with a lot of RAM (such as 16 GB) a lot will be used, otherwise it's just empty and wasted. On Macs with a smaller amount of RAM, such as my 2008 MacBook Air with 2 GB, it will adapt to use less RAM. My 2008 MacBook Air sits comfortably running Yosemite 10.10.3 with a few apps open.
 
redheeler said:
Clearly you're unfamiliar with memory management in OS X....
Click to expand...

Not entirely :)

I am not trying to say that a RAM upgrade is necessary - of course it isn't. The iMac wouldn't be offered for sale with inadequate RAM.

To quote myself: "For the purposes you've described, your proposed spec (incl. graphics card) will be fine."

But if the OP is going to upgrade the RAM anyway, why not upgrade from the outset and be done with it?
 
redheeler said:
I get you exactly :cool:



Clearly you're unfamiliar with memory management in OS X.

On Macs with a lot of RAM (such as 16 GB) a lot will be used, otherwise it's just empty and wasted. On Macs with a smaller amount of RAM, such as my 2008 MacBook Air with 2 GB, it will adapt to use less RAM. My 2008 MacBook Air sits comfortably running Yosemite 10.10.3 with a few apps open.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that Apple is doing something similar as Microsoft in Windows Vista (and newer) ? Windows will pre-load / cache applications you commonly used depending on the amount of memory you have. As far as I know they are still doing this in Windows 8. In the times of Windows Vista this made sense with slow spinning drives. I wonder whether this still makes sense in the days of SDDs.
 
loekf said:
Do you mean that Apple is doing something similar as Microsoft in Windows Vista (and newer) ? Windows will pre-load / cache applications you commonly used depending on the amount of memory you have. As far as I know they are still doing this in Windows 8. In the times of Windows Vista this made sense with slow spinning drives. I wonder whether this still makes sense in the days of SDDs.
Click to expand...

Of course it makes sense....

Ram is 10 times faster than the fastest ssd's and it always makes sense to make the most use of expensive components as you can.
 
redheeler said:
Clearly you're unfamiliar with memory management in OS X.

On Macs with a lot of RAM (such as 16 GB) a lot will be used, otherwise it's just empty and wasted. On Macs with a smaller amount of RAM, such as my 2008 MacBook Air with 2 GB, it will adapt to use less RAM. My 2008 MacBook Air sits comfortably running Yosemite 10.10.3 with a few apps open.
Click to expand...

To expand upon my previous reply (and clearly you make judgemental assumptions, btw):

Macs that have "a lot" of RAM don't simply use "a lot" because "otherwise it's just empty and wasted".

Whatever the volume of available RAM, RAM is only used when the Mac has a constructive use for it. That is to say, a use with a beneficial purpose.

If the OP increases their RAM from the base spec of 8GB, it will result in constructive use of whatever amount of the extra available RAM the iMac deems beneficial, resulting in lower memory pressure and concomitant benefits (including fewer reads/writes from/to a drive - whether SSD, Fusion or platter).

It is never a bad idea to give a computer more RAM than you might technically "need".

Except when running certain editions of Windows on PCs, in which case extra RAM can amount to a complete waste of money :)
 
Last edited:
I definitely will be upgrading the ram from 8gb to 16gb. Is it just a matter of chipping in another 2 sticks in those two empty slots?

So you all reckon that R9 M290X 2GB would be enough. Thats good to know!!

I take that those videos showing mission control and other lag in yosemite are old videos? There has been updates since and I believe that they those issues have be streamlined?

Thanks
 
umzyi said:
I definitely will be upgrading the ram from 8gb to 16gb. Is it just a matter of chipping in another 2 sticks in those two empty slots?

So you all reckon that R9 M290X 2GB would be enough. Thats good to know!!

I take that those videos showing mission control and other lag in yosemite are old videos? There has been updates since and I believe that they those issues have be streamlined?

Thanks
Click to expand...

This is the same exact point I am in my current purchase. I am going to get the 4.0 for sure but the video card is holding me up. My only reason being is it is the one thing that cannot be changed later.

The ram I am still researching is on sale this week.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-cables-_-na-_-na&Item=N82E16820231705&cm_sp=
 
umzyi said:
I definitely will be upgrading the ram from 8gb to 16gb. Is it just a matter of chipping in another 2 sticks in those two empty slots?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's easy. But considering that RAM is the only thing about an iMac that you can upgrade yourself at any point in time later using cheap 3rd party components, I would say wait and see. For the uses you have specified, it is very likely that you'll be fully satisfied with 8GB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back