Well, honestly, the results are pretty good. About 10% inrease, which is pretty nice. If anyone was expecting double performance with the M395X, they were delusional. Even in the PC world, double performance is unheard of in an evolutionary step of a gfx Card (i.e. 295x to 395x and not 295x to Titan)
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.
The Definitive riMac graphics benchmark thread
- Thread starter fruitpunch.ben
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Also looks like the M395 beats the M395X in some tests, which I am highly dubious about.
That doesn't sit well with the test in this thread which put the 395X about 20-25% ahead of the 395.
That doesn't sit well with the test in this thread which put the 395X about 20-25% ahead of the 395.
First comparing retina and non retina iMac benchmarks has not much useful point. Secondly, this thread is to decide what configuration to choose for the latest iMacs, not to ensure your past purchase is still relevant.
Hi all. I'm cross posting from #118, because it is getting out of hand:
All sorts of benchmarks are coming out as the new retina iMacs come in, but they are not standardized, and so it's impossible to compare. Here is what I have collected so far. If you can add to the information, please post, but do so with the same quality settings.
If you want any different benchmarks collected, ask and I'll add them to the list.
I will collect the results in this post.
EVERYONE with 2015 27" riMac: List your fps:
All tests at 1440p, list processor (i5/i7), RAM and card: (380, 390, 395, 395X)
1. Unigine Heaven running with:
- OpenGL/Direct X
- 2560x1440
- Quality Ultra
- Tessellation: Disabled
- Antialiasing: None
- Fullscreen
2. Ditto Cinebench
RESULTS: OS X/Open GL
UNIGINE:
1. Nvidia 680MX (2012): 21.4fps (7.7 - 47.6) i7 [Post #109]
2. Nvidia 780M (2013):
3. AMD 290 (2014):
4. AMD 290X (2014): 17.9fps (11 - 37.1) i5 [Post #3]
5. AMD 295X (2014): 21.7fps (13.3 - 44) i7 [Post #47]
6. AMD 380 (2015):
7. AMD 390 (2015):
8. AMD 395 (2015):
9. AMD 395X (2015): 20.7fps (9 - 42.9) i7 [Post #100]
CINEBENCH 15:
1. Nvidia 680MX (2012): 60.36fps (i7) [Post #110]
2. Nvidia 780M (2013): 75.08fps (i7) [Post #25]
3. AMD 290 (2014): 85fps (i5) [Mac4Ever review (French)]
4. AMD 290X (2014): 90.87fps (i5) [Post #63]
5. AMD 295X (2014): 104fps (i7) [Mac4Ever review (French)]
6. AMD 380 (2015):
7. AMD 390 (2015): 95.3fps (i5) [Mac4Ever review (French)]
8. AMD 395 (2015): 94.66fps (i5) [Post #95]
9. AMD 395X (2015): 102.87fps (i7) [Post #44]
Mac4ever:
Macotakara:
RESULTS: Windows/Direct X
Anyone have the benchmarks from the integrated gpu from the 21.5 inch Rimac?
Thanks!
I certainly was not expecting crazy amounts of performance increases, and I never stated any thing as such. There never are any such massive jumps these days. I stated clearly that I could have accepted even the same performance as last year if the extreme heat and noise issue was less of an problem.
Agreed. That barefears heat info sorta has me regretting the M395X now, should've stuck with the M395.
I have an i5+M395X. I will do a Heaven benchmark repeatedly (4-5 times or so) to see if there's any noise or throttling when I get home.
Huh? Didn't you have a suspicion that the 2015 model would be similar to the 2014 model?
I had absolutely no idea how any of the GFX cards stacked up when I ordered early on. So instead of sensibly waiting a week for reviews I decided to blindly throw money at the issue and hope for the best lol
I'm not a huge gamer so there's still hope the heat won't affect me much.
I had absolutely no idea how any of the GFX cards stacked up when I ordered early on. So instead of sensibly waiting a week for reviews I decided to blindly throw money at the issue and hope for the best lol
I'm not a huge gamer so there's still hope the heat won't affect me much.
Oh ok gotch ya. Yeah I was going to say the second they announced the new models there was a very good chance they would perform the same as last years. If you have no need for a 4GB card then you might want to return it. It's going to run hotter either way, even if your watching a 1080 HD video on youtube. It will be a great computer either way but will have some quirks
Me too. Looks like Barefeats is tackling that next. I ordered the i7/m395 which is still processing. The i7 definitely has a bigger power draw when idle and ramped up so curious how benchmarks look and whether it makes sense to save the $250 and just go with stock high end iMac (+change to the 512ssd)
Going by Barefeats, the M395X is 10.9% faster than the M295X just going off the frames per second tests.
Still very interested in the m380 here. I am thinking of ordering the base model plus 512 ssd, and returning last years model with the m290x. Mostly because of the fusion drive not that I expect the m380 to be better, but if its underpowered I might save myself the coin as I want to keep this computer for at least 4 years.
The iMac is a beautiful machine but I'm really sorry to say that the GPU performance is simply pathetic for the cost of the machine involved.
Apple could really benefit from making this half an inch thicker and solving some of these cooling/noise issues and pack it with more power and perhaps a cut down desktop card while they're at it.
It's just so frustrating that there is no Mac option for a great graphics card as the pro is constantly behind and the iMac they keep seeming to think needs to be filled with laptop guts so it can be pointlessly thin.
:-(
Apple could really benefit from making this half an inch thicker and solving some of these cooling/noise issues and pack it with more power and perhaps a cut down desktop card while they're at it.
It's just so frustrating that there is no Mac option for a great graphics card as the pro is constantly behind and the iMac they keep seeming to think needs to be filled with laptop guts so it can be pointlessly thin.
:-(
Unfortunately if you read the barefeats article it says the following:
"The M395X runs just as hot as the M295X. Both quickly climb from 45C to over 100C when stressed."
The design really needs to change to handle these higher end GPUs temps. You can see all the test results here:
http://barefeats.com/imac5k13.html
Yea Im saying, whats the difference between these two cards besides RAM? The 395x is maybe clocked slightly higher than the 395? I don't see why heat would be that different
Ah sorry I misread your post, I'd like to know that too. Most sites only bench the high-end it would be nice to see how the m395 handles the UI along with things like Lightroom/Final Cut/Premiere etc. My thought is that the extra VRAM is more important than the clock speeds.
Haven't been following these graphics threads much, and a bit behind on the current state of GPUs. However, most of the reviews of GPUs seem to be around gaming performance and what-not. But that's not the only reason to get a nice GPU. Personally, I upgrade dot the 395x because I want to ensure I can comfortably drive several high-res displays. Currently, I'll only be pushing a 5k and two 2.5 Ks, but I may be upgrading my external displays at some point. When I do, I just want to ensure that everything flows fluidly, and without lag. I know that the new 5k supports two external 4k, just not sure they can both be at 60z. And that's my desire.
Anyhow, does gaming performance always correlate with diving more pixels for non gaming kinds of tasks? I seem to remember reading, number a years ago, about how workstation and gaming GPU values weren't always aligned. That some GPUs that were screamers at gaming things didn't do as good of a job with lots of pixels.
This is not something I'm asserting, just something I'd like to know. Could it be that Apple chose this line of GPUs for their ability to better support pros driving lots of pixels for work applications, instead of people trying to play games? Just wondering...?
Anyhow, does gaming performance always correlate with diving more pixels for non gaming kinds of tasks? I seem to remember reading, number a years ago, about how workstation and gaming GPU values weren't always aligned. That some GPUs that were screamers at gaming things didn't do as good of a job with lots of pixels.
This is not something I'm asserting, just something I'd like to know. Could it be that Apple chose this line of GPUs for their ability to better support pros driving lots of pixels for work applications, instead of people trying to play games? Just wondering...?