iMac 2020 Reviews And Benchmarks - The Last Intel iMac

[Homy]

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.

Have you tried win+p keyboard combination in Windows?

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.

Might be but that is also my point. Buy 5700 XT for the extra 10-15% performance or 16GB VRAM if you really need it now or just have the cash. For me it's not worth the 67% price increase compared to 5700. I will be gaming in 1440p for better performance even in the future and saving my money.

 

[John90976]

Have you tried win+p keyboard combination in Windows?

Might be but that is also my point. Buy 5700 XT for the extra 10-15% performance or 16GB VRAM if you really need it now or just have the cash. For me it's not worth the 67% price increase compared to 5700. I will be gaming in 1440p for better performance even in the future and saving my money.

Agreed, 5700 is awesome and I'm glad they gave us options for it. It would suck if you had to pay an extra $200 for something you don't need and it would suck if they didn't kick in overdrive and shock with this 5700XT for those who want to push it. Short of a redesign we got a great best case scenario for most people.

 

[Homy]

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.

Yes, but supporting Intel architecture for 5-6 years is not the same as "Apple has Intel bumps scheduled for the next 3 years" like you said first. That was what I reacted to before. I asked for a public source regarding that statement. As for the information about Apple's support for Intel Macs for the next 5-6 years we don't need secret sources or leaks to understand that. We've been through this before:

- Apple presents a transition to new CPU architecture on WWDC (PPC to Intel June 2005)
- iMacs with the old architecture are updated for the last time a few months later (iMac G5 Oct 2005)
- The first new iMacs are introduced a few months later while the old architecture is discontinued at the same time (Jan 2006)
- The transition is over in 1-2 years and all Macs have the new CPU architecture (Aug 2006)
- Apple continues to support the old architecture for a few years with upcoming Mac OS and Rosetta (2006-2011 PPC)
- Apple drops support for the old architecture and Rosetta (2011 Mac OS 10.7 Lion)
- All Macs are updated with the old architecture only once after the transition is presented at WWDC (2005-2006)

 

[mikehalloran]

As for the information about Apple's support for Intel Macs for the next 5-6 years we don't need secret sources or leaks to understand that. We've been through this before:

This is public knowledge for the exact reasons I stated. It can all be looked up.
[automerge]1597541938[/automerge]

 

[mikehalloran]

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.

You understood me correctly.

My point was that Intel GPUs have come a long way since those used in the 5.1 and 6.1. The test as described is a great way to find the breaking point of any modern Mac. I know someone who ran a thousand tracks of Digital Performer in a Mini—not entry level but still a Mini. He did not run a convo-reverb in each track despite my encouragement to do so. DP is a niche DAW but anyone with $200 and a Mac can run Logic Pro X.

I won’t be running this test on my wife’s new 6 core unless she goes out of town for a few days — but you can when you get your 10 core. Logic makes it really easy to just keep doubling the count till the fans start to complain (Most DAWs can do that, too). Try in in your 5.1 first, of course. What’s the fun if you can’t make an A/B comparison and shout to the world?

 

[Homy]

This is public knowledge for the exact reasons I stated. It can all be looked up.
[automerge]1597541938[/automerge]

As I also did and wrote, but you stated "if my sources are correct" like it's insider info. Maybe I misinterpreted but it sounded like that when you wrote "Sorry, you don't get that." regarding my question "What's the source of your information?" about your statement "Apple has Intel bumps scheduled for the next 3 years".

 

[mikehalloran]

As I also did and wrote, but you stated "if my sources are correct" like it's insider info.

Let's be 100% crystal clear: Although I live smack dab in the middle of the Silly Con Valley and have known certain people since before Apple existed, not one Apple employee has ever told me anything that would get him/her fired nor would I let them.

My sources are very public but you do have to know where to look. One example:

How did anyone paying attention not know five years ago that Apple was dumping Intel in favor of ARM? It was widely reported after Intel mentioned it in their Annual Report to the shareholders. Since this news has/had a direct effect on the stock price, withholding that tidbit would have been a crime. Shareholder reports from publicly traded companies are public documents and can be found and researched.

It's not my job to do anyone's research unless there's a paycheck but, unless sharing personal details, everything I post can be found somewhere else. Personal detail: I was a paid researcher for years.

 

[Mcdevidr]

@Mike halloran. You are just dense for no reason. Did you read any of the threads about ram issues? I had the same issue. It is fixed now though, the apple included SK Hynix ram wont work with the OWC ram at full speed in dual channel And contrary to your suggestion calling them wouldn’t change that. I ordered more OWC ram for my 2020 and I threw in the SK Hynix in my 2019 imac, I must have used your magic touch because guess what it just works. In any case I don’t see this as an argument I see this as you ignoring all the threads and videos showing issues with the 2020 iMacs ram and then saying hey my iMacs work and my clients do to. All I can say to that is, must be nice.

 

[John90976]

@Mike halloran. You are just dense for no reason. Did you read any of the threads about ram issues? I had the same issue. It is fixed now though, the apple included SK Hynix ram wont work with the OWC ram at full speed in dual channel And contrary to your suggestion calling them wouldn’t change that. I ordered more OWC ram for my 2020 and I threw in the SK Hynix in my 2019 imac, I must have used your magic touch because guess what it just works. In any case I don’t see this as an argument I see this as you ignoring all the threads and videos showing issues with the 2020 iMacs ram and then saying hey my iMacs work and my clients do to. All I can say to that is, must be nice.

Same! I tried every config of two 8GB OWC sticks and the default two 4GB sticks Apple includes, could not get anything above 2133. I tried every config. Another two 8gb sticks from OWC overnighted via Amazon has me at a cool 32GB and 2667 thankfully. A shame the Apple RAM is so finicky.

 

[assisterah]

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?

I think you just answered your own question. Yes a 5700xt will definitely help on resale value in the future. You might not need it at the moment, but if you plans to keep the machine for at least two years, why not? The type of workloads you would put on this machine might change. I personally went with 5700XT because I need it for the VRAM. I guess when I was considering the Mac Pro and finally made the decision to “downgrade” to iMac, everything seems cheap. Lol.

 

[jacklivehere]

This is public knowledge for the exact reasons I stated. It can all be looked up.
[automerge]1597541938[/automerge]

intel macs give choice of windows , unlike PowerPC earlier. Different game this time

 

[Nicole1980]

As I also did and wrote, but you stated "if my sources are correct" like it's insider info. Maybe I misinterpreted but it sounded like that when you wrote "Sorry, you don't get that." regarding my question "What's the source of your information?" about your statement "Apple has Intel bumps scheduled for the next 3 years".

Yep. Someone is talking in circles, and it ain't you.

 

[JacobHarvey]

The 5700XT with 16GB in this iMac is killer, it has surpassed my expectations and actually runs Red Dead Redemption 2 in 4K on high with no issues, pure beauty, new details never before seen because the game was designed for 4K. I don't have a frame monitor on but it's butter and my house mate with a 2070 Super is smitten at this things performance as he can't run RDR2 in 4K, his GPU uses 3x the power and is very loud. I'm very pleased with this, and for me the i7 is wonderful overkill.

Are you absolutely certain that your iMac is running RDR2 with everything high at 4K resolution really smoothly? Or that your friend's PC doesn't have something affecting its performance?

What you've experienced is quite different to performance benchmarks of RDR2 from tech review sites where even the RTX 2080 Ti and regular PC 5700 XT can't hit a smooth 60fps at 4K high. See the following article as an example:

Red Dead Redemption 2 PC Graphics Benchmark

Launched on PC a year after it debuted on consoles, Red Dead Redemption 2 is still a big release that deserves a detailed benchmark analysis, much like...

www.techspot.com

VRAM does not appear to be the limiting factor in these comparisons either with notebookcheck reporting that at 4K high everything RDR2 uses less than 6GBs of VRAM. https://www.notebookcheck.net/Red-Dead-Redemption-2-Notebook-and-PC-Benchmarks.446993.0.html

The RTX 2070 Super that your friend has should be able to run it at 4K high but just at a framerate of 44fps that is only slightly better than Xbox/PS4 framerates (which are capped at 30fps). But obviously 4K High on PC is a much higher quality setting than what those consoles run at 30fps (even the Xbox One X and PS4 Pro probably run at medium settings).

 

[Azrael9]

Unigine Benchmarks are next...

1920x1080. 2xAA. Ultra Settings.

FPS: 113.4.
Score: 2856.
Min FPS: 19.2.
Max FPS: 281.

2560x1440. 2xAA. Ultra Settings.

FPS: 68.1
Score: 1715.
Min FPS: 17.
Max FPS: 116.7.

Fan temperature. Start: 52. Steady climb to 80s...then 90s...and holds at 93 degrees. With the fans on their 'low-to medium' whrrr.

Unigine. A benchmark that normal crushes consumer Macs.

Finally. An iMac that can game under intense loads. Yes. That IS on Ultra settings...

Azrael.

 

[Azrael9]

Are you absolutely certain that your iMac is running RDR2 with everything high at 4K resolution really smoothly? Or that your friend's PC doesn't have something affecting its performance?

What you've experienced is quite different to performance benchmarks of RDR2 from tech review sites where even the RTX 2080 Ti and regular PC 5700 XT can't hit a smooth 60fps at 4K high. See the following article as an example:

Red Dead Redemption 2 PC Graphics Benchmark

Launched on PC a year after it debuted on consoles, Red Dead Redemption 2 is still a big release that deserves a detailed benchmark analysis, much like...

www.techspot.com

And that makes the latest iMac quite compelling.

Very robust HD and 2440p fps with quality settings.

If even a 2080 Ti can't do 4k smoothly then 4k isn't a worry on a Mac vs PC comparison basis.

4k will probably finally have gpus that can handle it with the arrival of Ampere and RDNA2.

Azrael.

 

[Azrael9]

Red Dead Redemption 2 PC Graphics Benchmark

Launched on PC a year after it debuted on consoles, Red Dead Redemption 2 is still a big release that deserves a detailed benchmark analysis, much like...

www.techspot.com

*wry amusement.

The 5700XT isn't that far behind the 'mighty' 2080Ti. Can't even make the magic 60 FPS mark.

Remarkable given the price disparity.

Azrael.

 

[Azrael9]

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.

Spot on, John90976.

This is a price performance nightmare for the iMac Pro/Mac Pro.

It's a worthy 'last' Intel iMac.

Azrael.
[automerge]1597577221[/automerge]

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

One of the better, more approachable and 'get on with it' reviews.

Compelling battery of gaming tests. HD. QHD. Game over.

This iMac CAN game!

Azrael.

 

[Azrael9]

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.

It does have the 8 gigs extra VRAM to make 16 gigs.

But I hear what you're saying in terms of value per performance.

Azrael.

 

[macbro08]

Red Dead Redemption 2 PC Graphics Benchmark

Launched on PC a year after it debuted on consoles, Red Dead Redemption 2 is still a big release that deserves a detailed benchmark analysis, much like...

www.techspot.com

*wry amusement.

The 5700XT isn't that far behind the 'mighty' 2080Ti. Can't even make the magic 60 FPS mark.

Remarkable given the price disparity.

Azrael.

Which configuration did you get, Azrael? You've probably announced it multiple times, but I must have missed it.. and are you ordering you own RAM (if yes, which one?)


Thanks!

 

[Azrael9]

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.

Well said.

That 5700XT 16 gigger?

Kicks az.

Bomb proof in terms of future gaming that needs Vram.

When it's sitting near a 2080Ti in some instances...that's just mind blowing.

Some voodoo magic to get an under clocked version out performing a higher clocked PC version in 4k gaming.

Azrael.

 

[Azrael9]

Also ran metal with a 5500xt:
43013

(I don't recall benchmarks with this cpu+gpu+ram combo hopefully it helps someone decide)

How do you get the Metal test..?

I'd like to bench that.

Azrael.

 

[Azrael9]

I'm running the 10 core and 5700XT.

Somebody wanted me to bench a particular Blizzard game.

I'll have to download it to my external SSD and put it through its paces.

Azrael.

 

[macbro08]

I'm running the 10 core and 5700XT.

Somebody wanted me to bench a particular Blizzard game.

I'll have to download it to my external SSD and put it through its paces.

Azrael.

Cool! Can I ask what RAM you got for it?

 

[Menthol]

... I guess when I was considering the Mac Pro and finally made the decision to “downgrade” to iMac, everything seems cheap. Lol.

Exactly. I feel psychologically "played," but also a little relieved that I will pretty much get the power I need at a price point that is only uncomfortable rather than obscene. Assuming I pull the trigger on this, I'll be paying almost twice as much as I paid for my 5,1 (though of course I sunk a lot more money into that machine over time) rather than the 4x it would have cost for a new Mac Pro! And I'll feel "lucky." Very clever, Apple; you sly devils ...

 

[addoh]

I'm running the 10 core and 5700XT.

Somebody wanted me to bench a particular Blizzard game.

I'll have to download it to my external SSD and put it through its paces.

Azrael.

Hi! Have you by any chance tested World of Warcraft on your iMac?