iMac 2020 Reviews And Benchmarks - The Last Intel iMac

[John90976]

I wonder how he knows it's fast. His only reason is "it ought to be" because of i9 and 5700 XT. Makes me wonder if he even has used the computer in some apps...

That’s the thing reviews of this computer has made me realize, something I’ve known but feel defines this machine, perhaps because it’s the end of it’s current form most likely. However, people find power and speed in what they do, and the beauty in these things is that what people do with a computer varies from person to person a lot. It has revealed most reviewers don’t use or look at computers like I do, despite the fact that they’re enthusiasts and ought to care about a certain feature as much as I do, about how blow away this thing is for what we expected. I wish it was given more credit and ran through its paces a lot more in the reviews. They all say it’s incredibly fast but they don’t take that to its limit. It’s like Apple said to reviewers “Hey, don’t emphasize that this thing destroys our $5K iMac Pro too much, alright?” That’s probably too cynical but everyone has underemphasized this machine’s power and it makes them look foolish.

 

[gtg465x]

My Vega 48 runs in the mid-70’s low 80’s with the fan manually set to 2700 RPM when under load.

Under what load? Mine easily gets into mid 90’s towards the end of a Heaven benchmark run even with the fans set to max.

 

[quagmire]

Under what load? Mine easily gets into mid 90’s towards the end of a Heaven benchmark run even with the fans set to max.

Yeah when I did Unigine yesterday it hit 90 C. My loads are mostly gaming which is flight sims and snow runner, etc.

 

[filmgirl]

Got some decent benchmarks out of this solid review of maxed out model. 5700XT generally matches 2070 Super so its a bit of a shame it's that it looks likes its anywhere from 15-20% weaker due to lower power.

He also mentioned in this video and his base model review that using faster RAM worked in Boot Camp but not in macOS. I bought 266GMHz RAM and have no interest in going faster, at least for now, but that was good to know from a Benchmarking standpoint.

 

[gtg465x]

Here’s some gaming benchmarks of the 2019 and 2020 systems. I used my 2019 machine’s benchmarks and pulled the 2020 benches from some of the videos linked here.

3D Mark Firestrike Overall:

• 2019 Core i9 Vega 48: 14139
• 2020 Core i9 5700 XT: 18246 (29% faster)

3D Mark Firestrike Graphics:

• 2019 Core i9 Vega 48: 16393
• 2020 Core i9 5700 XT: 20723 (26% faster)

Unigine Heaven Extreme Preset macOS:

• 2019 Core i9 580X: 45.8 - 46.8 fps
• 2019 Core i9 Vega 48: 68.5 fps
• 2020 Core i5 5300: ~59 fps
• 2020 Core i7 5500 XT: 64.2 fps
• 2020 Core i9 5700 XT: 98.3 fps (43% faster than Vega 48)

 

[gtg465x]

So Max did more benchmarking with the 5500 XT. Some interesting results. In the two GFXBench results he showed and the Unigine test with the framerate only, the 5500 XT is not far behind my Vega 48. In the Unigine test, the 5500 XT pulls 64 FPS while my Vega 48 does 67 FPS. In GFXBench, the 1440p Aztec Ruins test results are pretty much equal at 136 FPS( 5500) and 137 FPS( Vega 48). The Manhattan 1440p test has the 5500 at 267 FPS and my Vega 48 pulls 287 FPS so only 9% off pace there for the 5500 XT.

I am hardly an expert on benchmarks, but keeping track of all these benchmarks results so far seem to show some inconsistencies. Geekbench Metal scores doesn't have the 5500 XT close at all to the Vega 48. The Unigine FPS wise show it close and the Aztec Ruins tests has it close. The Manhattan test has it 9% slower than the Vega 48.

I believe Geekbench Metal tests compute performance of the GPUs. The Vega line excels at compute performance whereas the 5XXX series are optimized for gaming and not meant for compute, so it makes sense the 5500 XT pulls closer in gaming oriented benchmarks.

 

[Menthol]

I'm considering finally abandoning my Mac Pro 5,1 for the 10-core iMac. I want to use it for Logic Pro primarily. I don't think Apple is going to update the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro's bang for the buck just doesn't work for me. (Although settling for an all-in-one really feels like a compromise.)

If I get the iMac I'll invest in lots of storage and (third party) RAM, but I don't know what to opt for in terms of the graphics card. I'll want to run a second monitor but I don't really need a robust card for gaming or anything like that. On the other hand, I would like to future-proof it at least somewhat. Can someone recommend the appropriate card for me? The 5700 XT seems quite a bit beyond my needs.

Thanks.

 

[assisterah]

I'm considering finally abandoning my Mac Pro 5,1 for the 10-core iMac. I want to use it for Logic Pro primarily. I don't think Apple is going to update the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro's bang for the buck just doesn't work for me. (Although settling for an all-in-one really feels like a compromise.)

If I get the iMac I'll invest in lots of storage and (third party) RAM, but I don't know what to opt for in terms of the graphics card. I'll want to run a second monitor but I don't really need a robust card for gaming or anything like that. On the other hand, I would like to future-proof it at least somewhat. Can someone recommend the appropriate card for me? The 5700 XT seems quite a bit beyond my needs.

Thanks.

Even the base 5300 will do you just fine for audio works. I would suggest to go one tier higher if you plan to keep the machine for a bit longer.

I know exactly what you mean by saying ”compromise” coming from a Mac Pro to an iMac. But investing in an intel Mac Pro and keeps that machine for at least 3-5 years when knowing AS Mac Pro could drop in about two years simply does not feel right. I’d rather buy an well-speced iMac and use it for two years, then upgrade to AS Mac Pro in the near future. By then all the software issues would probably fixed during the transition and you got to enjoy a powerful AS Mac Pro for a longer life span.

 

[MacRS4]

That’s the thing reviews of this computer has made me realize, something I’ve known but feel defines this machine, perhaps because it’s the end of it’s current form most likely. However, people find power and speed in what they do, and the beauty in these things is that what people do with a computer varies from person to person a lot. It has revealed most reviewers don’t use or look at computers like I do, despite the fact that they’re enthusiasts and ought to care about a certain feature as much as I do, about how blow away this thing is for what we expected. I wish it was given more credit and ran through its paces a lot more in the reviews. They all say it’s incredibly fast but they don’t take that to its limit. It’s like Apple said to reviewers “Hey, don’t emphasize that this thing destroys our $5K iMac Pro too much, alright?” That’s probably too cynical but everyone has underemphasized this machine’s power and it makes them look foolish.

It's a difficult thing to present - relative performance. I'm just doing a run through of the 10 core for example, and I baseline it against the kit I do actually use regularly: The iMac Pro and my 16" MBP. Both are reasonable competitors for the 10 core aren't they, albeit the portability and perhaps the IO being key differentiators.

As to what to do - when I first started doing these videos - actually, I'll rephrase that - when I first started being asked to do them, it was because a lot of the reviews out there showed benchmarks/unboxing etc. but very little 'real world' stuff. I used to want to know a potential upgrade would help my video editing, is it worth the upgrade for VM stuff that I do etc.

It's also difficult in that I'm a bit spoilt for kit, I tend to get to choose the stuff I actually use during my day job for example, so swap around a lot. Saying that, the iMP has been at the centre of everything for a while - best bit of compute kit I've ever owned.

So this 10 core has a lot to live up to if I'm to consider replacing it.

So my run throughs I try be as open and objective as possible. The biggest objectivity challenge I have is that I don't typically the i5/i7 ranges, it's always the top spec ones. Why wouldn't I, it's not usually my money!

 

[Fred Zed]

just finished upgrading my ram to 64gb, removed the previous 8gb to ensure dual channel is working,

i9 10core, 64gb ram, 5500xt
and my Geekbench score is:
Single Core: 1160
Multi Core: 9241

Does this look right?

I removed the two 4gb sticks from apple and replaced them with the 32gb sticks. From the Memory tab in About This Mac, it is the bottom two memory slots and they've been detected as 32 + 32 @ 2667Mhz.


edit:
reran
Single core: 1284
Multi: 9784

You put two 32GB in the bottom slots ? Put them in the original slots that the Apple 8GB RAM was in.

 

[Menthol]

Even the base 5300 will do you just fine for audio works. I would suggest to go one tier higher if you plan to keep the machine for a bit longer.

I know exactly what you mean by saying ”compromise” coming from a Mac Pro to an iMac. But investing in an intel Mac Pro and keeps that machine for at least 3-5 years when knowing AS Mac Pro could drop in about two years simply does not feel right. I’d rather buy an well-speced iMac and use it for two years, then upgrade to AS Mac Pro in the near future. By then all the software issues would probably fixed during the transition and you got to enjoy a powerful AS Mac Pro for a longer life span.

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree completely with your strategy here and may indeed buy an iMac now with an eye toward moving on to an AS Mac Pro before the iMac's natural end-of-life if it better meets my needs and is within my reach financially. But I can't hold off on a purchase until then; I need the iMac now.

But this raises an interesting question. Even if I don't need the 5700 XT, I wonder if it would make sense to pick it up anyway, in order to enhance resale value. A Mac that can boot into Windows and has a high end card might be more appealing in 2-3 years to a gamer than one with a mediocre card.

I dunno, I hate to buy more than I need but I'm just wondering it would make sense as a hedge. Thoughts?

 

[Homy]

10-core 5700 XT, Windows and Mac gaming benchmarks and how to game on an external 144Hz monitor:

 

[Homy]

10-core 5700 XT

iMac 5K 27-inch (2020) review: An old dog learns a few new tricks

Apple Silicon Macs are coming, which puts the new Intel 5K iMac in a strange position. It may be one of the last of its kind, but is it worth buying anyway?

www.digitaltrends.com

Engadget | Technology News & Reviews

Find the latest technology news and expert tech product reviews. Learn about the latest gadgets and consumer tech products for entertainment, gaming, lifestyle and more.

japanese.engadget.com

 

[Homy]

I wish we had some benchmarks for 5700. In pc benchmarks 5700 XT is 10-15% faster but the iMac upgrade from 5700 to 5700 XT is 67% more expensive. The price certainly doesn't match the extra 10-15% performance. Everybody seems to buy XT but I wonder if people will even really need it.

 

[quagmire]

I wish we had some benchmarks for 5700. In pc benchmarks 5700 XT is 10-15% faster but the iMac upgrade from 5700 to 5700 XT is 67% more expensive. The price certainly doesn't match the extra 10-15% performance. Everybody seems to buy XT but I wonder if people will even really need it.

Games I play love VRAM. It will gladly eat the more you throw at it. In 2-3 years more games will probably like 16GB as well.

 

[Homy]

Games I play love VRAM. It will gladly eat the more you throw at it. In 2-3 years more games will probably like 16GB as well.

As far as I know there are no games that use more than 8GB today. There are not even consumer GPU cards for pc with 16GB VRAM. Even in 4K many games use only 4GB. https://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/89/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k/index.html

8GB is more than enough for many years and you can be sure that the underclocked 5700 XT in iMac wont be able to to play the latest games in 2-3 years at 4 K and high settings so 16GB in a current GPU won't make a difference in the future. 16GB will make a difference though with modern cards when you buy in the future. Don't buy 16GB VRAM now for future gaming.

 

[quagmire]

As far as I know there are no games that use more than 8GB today. There are not even consumer GPU cards for pc with 16GB VRAM. Even in 4K many games use only 4GB. https://www.tweaktown.com/tweakipedia/89/much-vram-need-1080p-1440p-4k/index.html

8GB is more than enough for many years and you can be sure that the underclocked 5700 XT in iMac wont be able to to play the latest games in 2-3 years at 4 K and high settings so 16GB in a current GPU won't make a difference in the future. 16GB will make a difference though with modern cards when you buy in the future. Don't buy 16GB VRAM now for future gaming.

DCS eats most of the 8 GB of my Vega 48. X-Plane 11 takes about 6-7 GB and that isn’t maxed out either on settings.

But you may be right about 2-3 years from now where the HP of the 5700 XT wont be enough instead of the VRAM.

 

[torifile]

10-core 5700 XT, Windows and Mac gaming benchmarks and how to game on an external 144Hz monitor:

He talked about using SwitchResX to turn off the internal display but that's just under macOS. What about under windows? I've got a 1440p/144hz display I'd like to use when I'm gaming.

 

[mikehalloran]

Is there any feedback on the nano texture glass that explains whether durability might be an issue longer term?

None of my Apple connections are reporting a problem with the nano-glass. With AppleCare, they will own any I find for the next 3 years.

According to Geekbench Metal results Pro 5700XT can actually outperform Pro Vega 64X but that's just one test.

Yea and it's Geekbench. Let's see tht same test on FCPx where it might be meaningful.

What's the source of your information

Sorry, you don't get that. But let's say that Tim Cook's 2 year prediction is more accurate. Because of California law and international agreements, Apple will be supporting Intel architecture through 2025 at the soonest; 2026 if my sources are correct.

My wife’s Late 2013 iMac’s display is getting flaky.

Betting you haven't replaced the NV RAM battery, right? It's now over 7 years old. These are the most common cause of GPU issues in iMacs. If you have a HDD or Fusion drive inside, use the OE BR2032 ($7 on Amazon). If SSD only, a CR2032 from the drug store will be fine. Since it's apart, the perfect time to rip out the old storage and install an NVMe blade to more than double the speed. Since the labor averages $100, if planning to replace it anyway, you might want to be doing that soon.

But.... wait. Did that tear down show that the cpu was in a socket? So you can upgrade from the base model your self?

Yes. You will not save any money doing this, however. Apple's RAM prices are insane but their CPU prices are market price. Various teardown and replacement videos claim savings of $7–$18 over buying the CPU upgrade from Apple — and then there are tools and tape etc.

If planning to give an old iMac its Wheaties, yea, you can do some serious upgrading for not much money. I really recommend a 2015 or later iMac because it has a 4 lane PCI bus.

In other words you are incapable of reading. Don’t worry seems common in these times. Normally I wouldn’t respond but this is insulting. But hey if anyone has any issues with ram don’t bother looking at videos that report and show how you have to install ram in this new Mac just divert all attention to this man who can fix anything.

Well, it is a business. Being semi-retired, I don't do much of it anymore but I am very good at it.

The most insulting thing I said was that OWC will take care of you for free while I (or any other experienced Mac tech) would charge you to fix the problem. That's a fact.

That you have wasted time and keystrokes arguing is just silly.

My iMacs work. My clients' and customers' iMacs work. I have a pair of OWC 16GB sticks for the new iMac waiting for it to arrive. I expect it to work but, if not, I'm not too proud to call OWC to help me.

Your's is the one with the problem. Have you called them yet or are you just going to rant some more?

Or… did this ever really happen to you?

 

[rkuo]

DCS eats most of the 8 GB of my Vega 48. X-Plane 11 takes about 6-7 GB and that isn’t maxed out either on settings.

But you may be right about 2-3 years from now where the HP of the 5700 XT wont be enough instead of the VRAM.

Even if we somehow exceed 8GB VRAM in games, it won't exactly be the end of the world to detune the texture size settings a little.

 

[quagmire]

Even if we somehow exceed 8GB VRAM in games, it won't exactly be the end of the world to detune the texture size settings a little.

Sure. I’m not saying someone should break their budget or stretch their finances to get the 5700 XT over the 5700.

But I also wouldn’t say possibly that the 5700 XT is a bad buy if one has the means to get one. How many times have we heard, “ Who needs XX GB” of whatever? 16 GB of VRAM will be needed one day very likely. His point of hitting the power limit of the 5700 XT before needing to go above 8 GB for more games than the ones I play though is very valid.

 

[rkuo]

Sure. I’m not saying someone should break their budget or stretch their finances to get the 5700 XT over the 5700.

But I also wouldn’t say possibly that the 5700 XT is a bad buy if one has the means to get one. How many times have we heard, “ Who needs XX GB” of whatever? 16 GB of VRAM will be needed one day very likely. His point of hitting the power limit of the 5700 XT before needing to go above 8 GB for more games than the ones I play though is very valid.

Oh, I completely agree with that. I don't think we'll exceed 8GB VRAM in games before other advances give us plenty of compelling reasons to upgrade. So I really don't find 8GB vs 16GB VRAM interesting in terms of future proofing.

There's also the fact that the iMac has a shared power limit between all of its components and a someone gimpy cooling system, so it's pretty unclear how much a game can push everything at once before the whole system gets throttled. I don't feel reviewers have addressed this thoroughly yet and in general the issue makes me suspect of trying to get all the highest spec and power components.

 

[mikehalloran]

I'm considering finally abandoning my Mac Pro 5,1 for the 10-core iMac. I want to use it for Logic Pro primarily.

Oh hell yes. There's a video out there with the project you are looking for. Unfortunately, I can no longer find it.

This guy is an English film composer running a 12 Core MP 6.1 with 75 instances of VIs in Logic, each track with a convo reverb and another plugin. Convo reverbs make for a CPU intensive load. Then he doubled it to 150 and the result wasn't pretty. Ok...

After moving that same project to a 10 core iMP and doubling it again to 300 instances, the new machine didn't break a sweat.

Logic isn't my main DAW but I have a copy. So for kicks and giggles, I created a 500 instance test project, then goosed it to 1,000 instances on my 14 core. No problem and the fans crept a little above idle. I wasn't interested in pushing the envelope so declared enough is enough.

I assume that you know each VI should be in a separate instance. This lets the Mac OS balance the load among the cores.

After doing the research, I had determined that a 10 core iMP with 64GB RAM hit my sweet spot. I was about to pull the trigger when someone offered me a barely used 14 core 128GB with 2 1/2 years AppleCare remaining. Ok, twist my arm...

 

[John90976]

This under clocked 5700 XT with 16GB of RAM outperforms its higher clocked PC counterpart in 4K gaming for what I play, and RDR2 is no walk in the park, so if that isn't the RAM compensating to the point of outperforming a 2080TI (by 2fps) as well, then I have no clue. This card is the best available and the 5700 isn't that far behind based on numbers or price, if you need it you probably know, and this VRAM is massive future proofing for this iMac hands down. Again, it outperforms the PC market equivalent and leader in performance and price. This iMac is one of the better deals in high end gaming until RDNA 2 and Ampere.

 

[Menthol]

Oh hell yes. There's a video out there with the project you are looking for. Unfortunately, I can no longer find it.

Mike, note I was talking about the new 2020 iMac, not an iMP. With this now clear, do you think it would be a mistake not to opt for the Pro? Or was your comment meant to endorse the idea of powerful iMacs generally for Logic Pro?

Thanks.