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.
seriously no one with a m380 GPU?
- Thread starter squaredeux
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
annoying isn't it. I want more in depth info on 380 and 390 but no one seems to be coming forward.
If you are interested in the m380x then just use the top spec mbpr for info and add about 20% on top as the m380x will be very similar (both 128bit, same architecture but a few more shaders).
For your use I am sure it will be fine but gaming at 1440p may be an issue, you may want to consider 1080p
If you are interested in the m380x then just use the top spec mbpr for info and add about 20% on top as the m380x will be very similar (both 128bit, same architecture but a few more shaders).
For your use I am sure it will be fine but gaming at 1440p may be an issue, you may want to consider 1080p
how does 1080p look on a retina? doesn't it look bad? i just chose 1440p since its "compatible" with 5k
At barefeats, there are a few Diablo III benchmarks. A 4 core mac pro can do 63 frames per second, on D300. A retina imac could do 73 fps on a r9 m295.
http://barefeats.com/imac5k.html
Assuming that these framerates have nothing to with the CPU, and everything to with the GPU, the following GPUs should produce more than 60 fps @ 1440 fps
m395x
m395
The m390 might just do it--my recent benchmarks at the apple store (heaven,luxmark) show that it's somewhat slower than the D300/m290x--- but the m380 is likely a lost cause.
A whole lot of assumptions, but hey, you're desperate for an answer.
http://barefeats.com/imac5k.html
Assuming that these framerates have nothing to with the CPU, and everything to with the GPU, the following GPUs should produce more than 60 fps @ 1440 fps
m395x
m395
The m390 might just do it--my recent benchmarks at the apple store (heaven,luxmark) show that it's somewhat slower than the D300/m290x--- but the m380 is likely a lost cause.
A whole lot of assumptions, but hey, you're desperate for an answer.
The real cost of upgrading to a 395m is 300$. Anyone who buys a 2k$ machine without either a 2tb fusion or better yet 256gb SSD is throwing their money away IMHO. For that 300$ you also get a slight CPU bump which is nice.
If you want to do any kind of 3d gaming on 1440p i would get at least the 395m.
If you're not going to do any 3d gaming get the 380m. (* unless you have pro apps which stress a GPU)
If you want to do any kind of 3d gaming on 1440p i would get at least the 395m.
If you're not going to do any 3d gaming get the 380m. (* unless you have pro apps which stress a GPU)
As far as I know, the iMac screen doesn't support 3D - how are you going to play 3D games?
I ordered the m380 with a 256 flash storage. I'll post the cinebench if I get it early this week.
Hard to tell if this is a language barrier thing but a 3D game is a game with rendering that would tax the graphics card in it - IE most modern games, where as a platformer like the original Mario would be a 2D game.
We live in 2015, most games consists of a 3D world so it's kind of implied already - otherwise you specify it by saying a 2D game or platformer like you mentioned. So when you say "3D games", to me, that is when you need 3D glasses, like you have when you go see a 3D movie in the cinema.
But to what you refer to; Games with 3D worlds doesn't automatically tax the GPU. There are many light-weight games that I'm sure the M380 would handle. Cities Skylines will probably work great. Rocket League as well. StarCraft 2. Diablo 3. The list goes on.
I ordered the same computer. I don't need the graphics cards- i just wanted the screen.
Thanks, i waiting
I dont kown if order a i5 3.2 - m390 - 256GB or, i5 3.3 - m395 - 256GB..
If the M380 is good for me i will buy my first option
I'm wondering the same thing, I asked a similar question here: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...imac-27-differences-for-casual-gamer.1930905/
Lol, not sure if your trolling. 3D gaming is specifically talking about games like Diablo 3, where 2d gaming would be games like Diablo 2. 3D glasses gaming, is so terrible, nobody talks about it, it's not even a thing. The headset VR stuff, is VR gaming.
Lol. No. Diablo 3 is a game. Terraria is a platformer or 2D game. 3D games are with glasses - regardless if it failed or not. When you speak of 3D in movies, you mean those with glasses - even though technically ALL movies have 3 dimensions. But I'm sure you know this so you're probably trolling
Lol, you have me laughing here quite a lot, so I give you that.Lol. No. Diablo 3 is a game. Terraria is a platformer or 2D game. 3D games are with glasses - regardless if it failed or not. When you speak of 3D in movies, you mean those with glasses - even though technically ALL movies have 3 dimensions. But I'm sure you know this so you're probably trolling
Sure, 3D movies are those where you put glasses on, but 3D games are those that render polygons and generally are using 3D capabilities of your GPU.
Diablo 3 would be classed as a 3D game, just like WoW, Tomb Raider or any other 3D game. 2D games are those like Terraria like you mention. Hell Minecraft is classed as a 3D game.
What you are talking about where you can see a 3D game like a 3D movie, is purely down to your computer settings and if you have the right hardware. Generally any 3D game can work on those devices. Most are flicker glasses, some are passive, but all suck to be honest.
Well you're easily impressed then, or have bad humor.
https://www.google.se/search?q=3d+gaming&source=lnms&tbm=isch
Your logic is flawed. Just because 3D gaming to you means regular games that consists of a 3 dimensional world, doesn't mean it's the first thing everyone else thinks of. Apparently Google agrees with me as all the top results are of 3D games (with glasses).
But keep laughing if that makes you feel better. I encourage it. A good laugh makes you live longer.
Any 3D game can be played with flicker glasses to get that 3D movie style experience, like those pictures show.
Still doesn't change the fact that Diablo 3 it's a 3D game. I'll put this down to the language barrier like another poster says.
What you are talking about, is really called Stereoscopic 3D gaming.
I guess Google is having some language barriers then as well?
While you are technically correct, that Diablo 3 is a 3D game, you don't call it a 3D game, you simply call it a "game" since it is the de-facto type of gaming most common. 2D games require you to specifically say 2D or platformer while "Stereoscopic 3D gaming" is most commonly referred to as 3D gaming.
That's the way everyone I know of say it. Even when I studied computer game development at university (which btw was in english), "3D gaming" was with glasses. But sure, let's call it a language barrier if it ends this pointless discussion.
3D games are just games that are in 3D space. How you view them, isn't taken into account. All "3D Games" can be played in "Stereoscopic 3D vision".
Look at it this way, if you are calculating hitting a ball in a room, you calculate that in 3d space, with 3d physics and geometry. That is how it's classed as a 3d game, not just the representation of using polygons.
GPUs are 3D accelerators. It's not about how you see the game, it's how the game is calculated.
But anyway, this is getting tiresome now, keep thinking what you want.
Refusing to comment on the Google thing I see
I know how 3 dimensional games are calculated. I made a few of my own while studying it. I'm not talking about how it's calculated, I'm talking about naming conventions. Seems you're not understanding that. But that's cool. Let's call it a language barrier, you seem to dig those
Refusing to comment on the Google thing I see
I know how 3 dimensional games are calculated. I made a few of my own while studying it. I'm not talking about how it's calculated, I'm talking about naming conventions. Seems you're not understanding that. But that's cool. Let's call it a language barrier, you seem to dig those
Dude, I've worked in the gaming industry for over 10 years. I've made AAA 3D games for a living. i've played 3D games before we even had 3D accelerators. Elite on the Commodore C64 is a 3D game. Look at https://unity3d.com Unity 3D is a game engine to make 3D games. Only recently did they add good support for 2D game creation on the platform.
If somebody is talking about 3D games, they are only talking about three dimensional rendered games. Hence how Diablo 3 would be called a 3D game.