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.
M380 M390 M395 M395X Thread
- Thread starter fob
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What about the differences between the base configurations of each tier (M380 vs M390 vs M395)?
This means that there is a new cooling system for 5k. And that is an excellent news!
Last edited:
Actually, it because of the new manufacturing process that allows same or more power yet cooler temps. I don't think there is any change with cooling system. Regarding to link, asus brand PCs was used it says.
Accroding to Intel's website, Skylake i7-6700k is 91W TDP chip. Haswell i7-4790K is 88W. So they are pretty much same, but Skylake can produce a bit more heat when 100% utilized. On average it can be opposite of course. Skylake i7 will give better perf/watt.
Last edited:
I've read the specs wrong as visa versa. My mistake.
Oh, I've read those TDP values reverse on a comparison site by mistake.
Your "on average" guess might be the explanation. I hope you are right about more effective cooling system too.
Oh, I've read those TDP values reverse on a comparison site by mistake.
Your "on average" guess might be the explanation. I hope you are right about more effective cooling system too.
This is a comparison of the CPUs in general, not while in the 5k iMac. We currently know nothing about the cooling system for the new 5k
If I didn't care about games at all, I would surely get the M395. But I would like to be able to play modern games without having to build a separate PC rig, so I will spring for the M395X and hope it's good enough for 1080/1440 on high. The i7 upgrade is already a "must" for me for my audio work.
The teardown done by OWC shows no change in cooling system vs previous model I believe.
One thing I noticed when I tested the new iMac with the M395, versus the previous generation with the M295X, is the temperature on the M395 never got above 80º Celsius whereas the M295X would reach 100º Celsius while getting roughly equal performance. While I don't expect the M395X to surpass the M295X by any statistically significant margin, perhaps it will equal the performance of it's predecessor while not overheating.
I'm hoping the 395X will significantly surpass the 295X (which, you say, equals the M395), I have to say, given that I dropped an extra 200 quid on it over the 395! :-/
I'm saying: wait for benchmarks, particularly benchmarks of the m395x before deciding that you can get the "gaming" configuration on the cheap.
Haha Jerwin even posted in my thread. Whats interesting is in our company of heroes 2 testing the m290x was only just behind my m395.
I have now added benchmarks of my alienware 17 with 970m scores and the m395 isn't much slower. I would estimate the m395x to be almost on par with the 970m if it doesn't throttle.
I have just been playing BF4 at 1440p high preset. On 64man servers and it was smooth as silk. I capped frames at 60 and it was solidly at 60, even in metro with the masses of explosions
I have now added benchmarks of my alienware 17 with 970m scores and the m395 isn't much slower. I would estimate the m395x to be almost on par with the 970m if it doesn't throttle.
I have just been playing BF4 at 1440p high preset. On 64man servers and it was smooth as silk. I capped frames at 60 and it was solidly at 60, even in metro with the masses of explosions
.
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6236984
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/3435677
http://www.3dmark.com/cg/3114558
http://www.3dmark.com/is/3291495
Firestrike: m395 is 22 percent faster
Skydiver: m395 is 10 percent faster
Cloudgate m395 is 6 percent faster.
IceStorm: m395 is slower, but it's a silly test.
The thing is, my firestrike framerates are sometimes in the single digits. A forty percent increase in stream processors, though certainly welcome, is not quite enough to lift them to playable levels. The m395x might solve this problem.
Yeah-- I guess the firestrike really does a good job of exercising those extra elements:
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6236984
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/3435677
http://www.3dmark.com/cg/3114558
http://www.3dmark.com/is/3291495
Firestrike: m395 is 22 percent faster
Skydiver: m395 is 10 percent faster
Cloudgate m395 is 6 percent faster.
IceStorm: m395 is slower, but it's a silly test.
The thing is, my firestrike framerates are sometimes in the single digits. A forty percent increase in stream processors, though certainly welcome, is not quite enough to lift them to playable levels. The m395x might solve this problem.
No, I've miswrote that a bit. Actually the compute power of R9 270X is around 2.5 TFLOPs. 2.2 TFLOPs is M290X/FirePro D300 compute power.
Apparently. the 3.5 Teraflops is based on
Texture Units * Raster Operators * (core clock) = GFLOPS
so,
128*32*0.850=3481 giga flops (m295x)
80*32*0.975 = 2496 gigaflops (m290x)
I'll leave it as exercise for the reader to fill in other graphics cards.
edit m395 might be
112*32*.834= 2989 gigaflops.
wikipedia notes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_Rx_200_series
Single precision performance is calculated as two times the number of shaders multiplied by the base core clock speed.
Texture Units * Raster Operators * (core clock) = GFLOPS
so,
128*32*0.850=3481 giga flops (m295x)
80*32*0.975 = 2496 gigaflops (m290x)
I'll leave it as exercise for the reader to fill in other graphics cards.
edit m395 might be
112*32*.834= 2989 gigaflops.
wikipedia notes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Radeon_Rx_200_series
Single precision performance is calculated as two times the number of shaders multiplied by the base core clock speed.
Last edited:
