Agree 100%. Not that the RiMac isn't a very good machine, but it's not without issues.
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.
AMD Radeon R9 M295X Core Clock Throttling, Heat, and Performance
- Thread starter Fenn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agree 100%. Not that the RiMac isn't a very good machine, but it's not without issues.
It's not really an AMD issue - it's the wattage of the GPU and the size in mm squared of the AMD die itself that the cooling system has to cope with sucking all that heat away from the processor die.
The inconsistencies of Apple's literally slapdash thermal paste application will mean ymmv with each and every 5k owner at just how well it will cope with cooling the processor dies for the CPU and in particular this option GPU.
Last edited:
That's why it kills me that apple went with AMD who's way behind in performance/watt right now vs Nvidia.
They want OpenCL for GPU acceleration. And until both of them shrink their silicon down from 28 to 20 nano microns, with AMD set to get there first will there truly be a large performance to watt benefit. They have both been on 28 for four years!
I'm guessing that AMD is easier to work with when it comes to custom design. I think it has more to do with business relations than with technology to be honest.
You mean 16nm FinFet
No one will release an 20nm GPU, except Microsoft and the Xbox One shrink.
You mean 16nm FinFet
No one will release an 20nm GPU, except Microsoft and the Xbox One shrink.
Sure I read a very recent article saying AMD were going to have a shrink first. Finfet is 16 with 20 gates as Intel have implied with their broadwell presentation correct?
Broadwell tracks at 14nm are only 30 atoms wide with only 10 less to go till quantum mechanical mayhem. I am not surprised they have had problems and I expect more and more of them till they hit the silicon brick wall!
I'm curious if you guys not happy with the retina iMac would recommend a maxed out 2013 model instead. Aside from the retina display, would the performance be better with the older model?
While I can't speak to the comparative performance with the retina iMac, I can certainly confirm that my i7/780M/1TB SSD 2013 iMac runs silent and cool. Evening gaming under win8.1, GPU and CPU die temps stay around 80C max.
Very happy with my 2013 iMac, even thought the retina screen looks gorgeous at the apple store. My retina Macbook Pro and iPad Air 2 have spoilt me with sharp screens, but the non-retina iMac is still a nice display at normal viewing distances, IMO anyway.
I'll probably be in the market for a retina iMac in 2 years or so. Hopefully, that model will have a nice GPU with more graphics power per watt (and target display mode!).
Very happy with my 2013 iMac, even thought the retina screen looks gorgeous at the apple store. My retina Macbook Pro and iPad Air 2 have spoilt me with sharp screens, but the non-retina iMac is still a nice display at normal viewing distances, IMO anyway.
I'll probably be in the market for a retina iMac in 2 years or so. Hopefully, that model will have a nice GPU with more graphics power per watt (and target display mode!).
My late 2013 is currently cooking!
I was waiting for this late 2014 iMac, and I think Retina is a major breakthrough! But too many youth problems (lags, heat...)... I wan't a zen computer, I will take the rev.2 or 3 iMac Retina in 2 or 3 years.
The one I've ordered is less powerful (CPU and GPU, about 10 or 20%), it has a classic HD screen, but it is well-tried and runs smoothly and cool...
Last edited:
Depends what u want it for.
If it's for Mac OS and working then the retina iMac for sure is the better choice with this amazing display.
If it's mostly for gaming then u might think about the old one. But I am quite happy with performance of my retina iMac in windows gaming, better then i expected.
Looks like it's touch and go with these new Retina iMacs, and luck off the draw if you get one with the thermal paste applied correctly.
It seems overwhelmingly the opinion on this forum that the Retina Imac runs hot and is prone to throttling but performance in all but gamiing is very good.
I have one on order (i7, 16gb, m295x and 3tb Fusion + Applecare). I could still cancel and maybe will BUT,
If this machine fails due to heat issues within the next 3 years, what will happen? This is my first Mac so not much experience with Apple.
I don't see why you should cancel - go for it. The throttling aspect will be totally variable and you may be one of the more fortunate ones. If not book a Genius Bar and complain about it. This paste inconsistency isn't just an Macintosh issue - all the manufacturers could learn something from gamers, overclockers and independent Mac engineers like me who do not like the slapdash way they apply thermal paste and the finish of the surface of the heatsink binding it.
Last edited:
Please do NOT spread misinformation like this unless you have pictures or other such evidence to suggest this is an actual issue.
Misinformation? This inconsistency between the processor dies and heatsinks have been always been an issue since way before they went Intel. I could make a G4 cube make half the racket it would do pasted Apple's way, and can cool anything stock Apple has ever produced by significant margins.
And I have seen it on roll outs of identical Mac computers too through the years also.
It's just more apparent with a whopping great 125w GPU in this 2012 chassis!
My statement stands. You may not agree, and I respect that you've had to do modifications on hardware in the past, but I've seen zero evidence of this issue on this iMac in question.
Having repasted 2012 27" and the entire MBP retina range to minimise throttling for gamers in bootcamp with excellent results and even better with the 2011 iMac and MBP to prevent the GPU breaking I am absolutely bound to disagree.
The only thing I can say as a fact over years of empirical evidence about Apple and thermal paste is - they are consistently inconsistent and do not spend as much time and effort as they should do applying it, particularly with this option GPU that buyers are paying extra for.
If anyone in the UK, ideally in London with a 5k on here wants me to demonstrate, it will take me about 2 hours at least being my first 5k repaste and will cost them the price of an adhesive ring for the display. To prove this point my labour will be free.
First: Please look up the term, "logical fallacy."
Second: Seriously? That's your argument?
First: Please look up the term, "logical fallacy."
Second: Seriously? That's your argument?
I figured as much...
First: Please look up the term, "logical fallacy."
Second: Seriously? That's your argument?
Then could you please explain to an engineer who sees the same "looks like a duck, walks like a duck" thermal paste issues that he's seen for years with all the other models, when it's very apparent that by reading this thread how he can come to any other conclusion that its a 5k duck this time in this iMac.
I've not read of a single 2012 iMac needing thermal paste because of throttling. I've never seen a 2012 iMac throttle at ANY point. I'm not even arguing that thermal paste is not being applied "correctly" at the factories. I'm arguing that I do not for a second believe it makes a tangible difference to the majority of these systems, and I'd nigh-guarantee it's nothing to do with the M295X's temperatures under load. Those AMD cards run hot. It's just the way it is.
However, as mentioned earlier, I'd be happy to believe any of these things if some (read: ANY) evidence can be shown that the 2012/2013 iMacs have had improper thermal paste applied. I can just easily cite my own empirical evidence, along with years of forum-going of my own to suggest that there are no widespread (pun intended) thermal-paste issues on the current-design iMacs (2012, 2013, 2014).
----------
I have a 5K iMac. Do you? No? Then please get one, do a teardown, and make your point. Otherwise, this conversation is over.