new 4K 21.5" and 5K 27" iMacs

[joe1946]

http://www.apple.com/imac/

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1190498-REG/apple_z0sc_mk48259_bh_27_imac_with_retina.html

The problem is they use mobile video cards like the M395X that is much slower than my PC's GeForce GTX770 card that is as fast as the top of the line GeForce GTX 980M mobile card that is much faster than the M395X.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+980M


http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-M395X-vs-GeForce-GTX-980M

My 6-core Mac Pro has dual D500 AMD workstation graphic chips that also beats the 5K iMac with M395X AMD mobile graphics in Final Cut Pro.

 

[David W. Jones]

That's an apples to oranges comparison.

The iMac is an all in one with limited space and no room for full size video cards.

 

[joe1946]

You could get laptops with dual 8GB GeForce GTX 980M graphic cards so there should be room in there for something more than the M395X IMHO.
https://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Fangbook_III_Xtreme_SLI
https://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Fangbook_III_HX7-300_Gaming_Laptop

 

[John Godden]

The benchmarks aren't even in yet.

 

[Thomas Smet]

Apple has always had this odd philosophy that larger is higher end. You can only get the best components by getting their larger device. The 27" iMac has always had faster components than the 21.5" iMac. I think its silly but thats just how Apple is. Technically the screen size shouldn't matter and if I prefer the smaller iMac screen I should still have the option of the best CPU and GPU they offer. Thats not how apple works however. If you want the fastest GPU in an iMac you have to go with the 27" version. Not that it is really a bad thing. The 27" is a great screen to have. I have a 2012 27" iMac that is still a pretty solid machine. Doesn't have the retina display but thats not a big deal. The pixels on here are still pretty small and it looks pretty darn good to me.

I also still use a few programs that are married to CUDA so I prefer to stick with my Nvidia based iMac for a bit longer. I hope everything switches to Open CL eventually. I really don't like software depending on one specific GPU manufacturer.

Honestly my 2012 iMac still holds its own very well compared to these newer iMacs. Not Apple's fault but the stagnant pace of CPU and GPU speeds over the last couple of years. Intel is more focused on heat and energy. The new 27" iMac with the i7 CPU is at best 35% faster than my 2012 i7 iMac. Most of that speed advantage comes from the 4.0Ghz vs 3.4Ghz of my iMac and not so much the generational change. I'm starting to think quad core CPU's have hit a ceiling in terms of performance. Its about time for the iMac to start using the 6 and 8 core desktop CPU's.

 

[Nirv]

The 5K iMac is a bit of a bargain considering it's a 5K P3 gamut monitor with a pretty decent computer inside.

I'm hanging on for v2.0 of the Mac Pro but I'm sorely tempted by the fully loaded 27" iMac. That 5K P3 screeeeennn!!!!

There's no doubt the GPUs in the Mac Pro are superior but the benchmarks show that for normal projects the iMacs with their mobile GPUs are easily powerful enough and only when applications are highly optimised does the Mac Pro stretch its legs. In open GL benchmarks the iMac is generally better than the Mac Pro due to having higher CPU cFreq.

Apple is saying if you need dual GPUs then the Mac Pro is what you needs for everything else an iMac with an outstanding display is a pretty good fit. If Apple put dual GPUs with 8 GBs in each then the base cost would be far beyond what the general iMac buyer would want to pay as it would be a special as a whole new thicker case and cooling would be needed.

 

[Nirv]

Not Apple's fault but the stagnant pace of CPU and GPU speeds over the last couple of years.

That's the problem right there. No processor war like the old days when AMD and Intel were kicking lumps out of each other. The GPU war is still one but unless you're into 3D or gaming you aren't really getting much benefit as even 4K video editing/finishing is a breeze for a single contemporary mobile GPU. Sure the Mac Pros dual GPUs have greater headroom, how much of that headroom will be used on a daily basis will be down to the software choice.

 

[Thomas Smet]

The 5K iMac is a bit of a bargain considering it's a 5K P3 gamut monitor with a pretty decent computer inside.

I'm hanging on for v2.0 of the Mac Pro but I'm sorely tempted by the fully loaded 27" iMac. That 5K P3 screeeeennn!!!!

There's no doubt the GPUs in the Mac Pro are superior but the benchmarks show that for normal projects the iMacs with their mobile GPUs are easily powerful enough and only when applications are highly optimised does the Mac Pro stretch its legs. In open GL benchmarks the iMac is generally better than the Mac Pro due to having higher CPU cFreq.

Apple is saying if you need dual GPUs then the Mac Pro is what you needs for everything else an iMac with an outstanding display is a pretty good fit. If Apple put dual GPUs with 8 GBs in each then the base cost would be far beyond what the general iMac buyer would want to pay as it would be a special as a whole new thicker case and cooling would be needed.

Where the MP has a clear advantage as well is sharing the load of GPU based tasks. For example you can drive multiple monitors with one GPU and handle all effects with the second GPU. The single GPU in the iMac has to handle everything. Hooking up a second 27" display to an iMac really starts to hit the performance of the single GPU in the iMac. This is where FCPX can really shine on the MP. You can drive some nice displays while still having the full horse power of a GPU to handle playback and effects.