Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

M380 M390 M395 M395X Thread

Andreas222 said:
Just placed an order on an i5 3,3GHz, M395. Good to hear the fans are quiet. But that temp worries me a bit, I didn't get apple care. I wonder if I should cancel my order and get the M390 instead... Has anyone run a similar test on that card?
Click to expand...

no one has yet :( knowing apple I would imagine it will also get to similar temps as the fans on my m395 don't start increasing until I hit 98c and even then they only increase slowly to keep it at 98c. I would imagine it will be the same behaviour on the m390 but it may take longer to get there
 
Serban said:
i can't translate but is the M395x better than M295x in performance and how about the fan and noise ?
Click to expand...

I can't say anything about the noise Levels, since I don't speak fench too.

But in terms of performance, the M395x seems to be better than the M295x (according to the charts on their website).
The performance of the M390 is better than the 2014 M290 and a tad slower than the 290x.

In the open CL benchmarks it's even close to the 295x.
Somehow the Skylake Chip seems to help in that matter.
 
hifimacianer said:
Indeed, the mid range 5k with the M390 seems to be a good value for it's Price tag.
But I was a little surprised, that the 4k iMac with i'ts Broadwell CPU seems to be better (CPU wise) than the i5 Skylake.
Click to expand...

I have seen that elsewhere that the 4K's CPU is slightly better than the base 5K's CPU.
 
hifimacianer said:
I can't say anything about the noise Levels, since I don't speak fench too.

But in terms of performance, the M395x seems to be better than the M295x (according to the charts on their website).
The performance of the M390 is better than the 2014 M290 and a tad slower than the 290x.

In the open CL benchmarks it's even close to the 295x.
Somehow the Skylake Chip seems to help in that matter.
Click to expand...

I speak french (I can translate some parts of the article if you want) and they don't speak about the noise level.
They say that this new iMac has a very good screen (as previous version), very good SSD read/write, CPU, but the GPU is very poor in that prize range.
The highest GPU card available offers at leat the same performance as a low GPU card for desktop.
 
Last edited:
REmmm said:
I speak french (I can translate some parts of the article if you want) and they don't speak about the noise level.
They say that this new iMac has a very good screen (as previous version), very good SSD read/write, CPU, but the GPU is very poor in that prize range.
The highest GPU card available offers at leat the same performance as a low GPU card for desktop.
Click to expand...

Which is nothing new, since they've used mobile GPU in the iMac for ages... so that's to be expected.
 
Tanax said:
Which is nothing new, since they've used mobile GPU in the iMac for ages... so that's to be expected.
Click to expand...
Yes, the way they use to say that means that the GPU is very poor. They say that this new iMac is a beast but if Apple had used a better mobile GPU card (maybe it means nVidia ?), this iMac could last for 3 or 4 more years before being outdated.

They are also saying that it's a pitty that the only "good" GPU is available only for the most expensive model. (and for +300€... ~400$ !!)
 
850 MHz theoretical, due to thermal throttling it was mostly around 750 MHz.
 
plsncld said:
They benchmarked Tomb Raider at 1440p and they got average frame rates of 18, 48, 59 for the Iris Pro 6200, M390 and M395X respectively. It seems that the mid-range 27" is a sweet spot.
Click to expand...
Lol so much for the iGPU supporters here who claim there will be parity with dGPUs soon and that dgpus will be obsolete.... Even 28nm dgpus are still laying the smack down on Intels latest and greatest. Poor 21 iMac 4K users....
 
magbarn said:
Lol so much for the iGPU supporters here who claim there will be parity with dGPUs soon and that dgpus will be obsolete.... Even 28nm dgpus are still laying the smack down on Intels latest and greatest. Poor 21 iMac 4K users....
Click to expand...
Things are not that black and white. 1080p works pretty well with this iGPU.
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_broadwell_i7_5775c_review_overclocking/10

This is Anandtechs review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5675c/7

Tomshardware.com : http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html

Another review, game test results in the middle of the page: http://www.maximumpc.com/intel-broadwell-dt-core-i7-5775c-review/#!
 
Last edited:
plsncld said:
They benchmarked Tomb Raider at 1440p and they got average frame rates of 18, 48, 59 for the Iris Pro 6200, M390 and M395X respectively. It seems that the mid-range 27" is a sweet spot.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that the same reasoning could be used to justify a m380. "more powerful than a Iris Pro; less extravagant than a m395x."
 
  • Like
Reactions: adgoodma
Zarniwoop said:
Things are not that black and white. 1080p works pretty well with this iGPU.
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/intel_broadwell_i7_5775c_review_overclocking/10

This is Anandtechs review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5675c/7

Tomshardware.com : http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html

Another review, game test results in the middle of the page: http://www.maximumpc.com/intel-broadwell-dt-core-i7-5775c-review/#!
Click to expand...

Ummm... All your benchmarks you linked to compared the 5775C vs all other crapola iGPU's. Also, they're all benchmarked at either 720P (even that would look like crap on a 4K screen), or 1080P on the lowest settings. Show me some benchmarks between the 5775C and the GPU's found in the iMacs... The new iMac is sporting a 21 4K display, Apple is being ridiculous (and cheap) by stripping the dGPU option... The gap would even be much bigger if Apple used Nvidia mobile GPUs like the 980/990.

EDIT: Went digging in one of your links and captured the images below from Tomshardware, yes it's the 7970, but that runs just a bit faster than the 285 which is basically a cut down version of the M390x.
The 7970 (basically a 390) is still 3X faster than Intel's best...
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-10-20 at 8.35.49 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-10-20 at 8.35.49 AM.png
    42.6 KB · Views: 296
  • Screen Shot 2015-10-20 at 8.35.59 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-10-20 at 8.35.59 AM.png
    46.8 KB · Views: 286
Last edited:
ninja2000 said:
no one has yet :( knowing apple I would imagine it will also get to similar temps as the fans on my m395 don't start increasing until I hit 98c and even then they only increase slowly to keep it at 98c. I would imagine it will be the same behaviour on the m390 but it may take longer to get there
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe you're right. One reason I didn't buy last years model was the high temperatures and throtteling issues. Also why I didn't consider the i7 this year, since it has an even higher TDP.

So overall, are you satisfied with your choice? Or do you regret not getting something else?
 
magbarn said:
The new iMac is sporting a 21 4K display, Apple is being ridiculous (and cheap) by stripping the dGPU option... The gap would even be much bigger if Apple used Nvidia mobile GPUs like the 980/990.

EDIT: Went digging in one of your links and captured the images below from Tomshardware, yes it's the 7970, but that runs just a bit faster than the 285 which is basically a cut down version of the M390x.
The 7970 (basically a 390) is still 3X faster than Intel's best...
Click to expand...
Its like with all first generation devices from Apple. First are always crap. rMB - with Skylake it will be the device it was meant in the first place. Mac Pro - first gen a bit, weird, with second gen, and TB3 will make sense. iMac 4K - with Broadwell CPUs. Looks like Apple deliberately used them to give second gen Skylake CPU, and quite big jump in GPU performance(which it will be quite huge jump with Skylake GPU Iris Pro).

The problem is Apple way of deciding: "That will do". This attitude killed british motoring industry back in the 80's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 762999
I think that now more than ever the top-end GPU Apple is dumping into these 27" iMacs is not acceptable. Laptops have come kicking and screaming into place - now offering extremely powerful gaming systems. I thought with the 2012 GTX 680MX in the iMac that Apple was on to something, but they've sat back since then and I'm hugely disappointed.

I'd have been very tempted to get a 2015 iMac if it came with a 980M, or some special variant above that (which you'd expect from Apple given the unique and powerful 680MX they used in 2012).

Oh well, maybe next year!
 
  • Like
Reactions: topgunn
magbarn said:
Ummm... All your benchmarks you linked to compared the 5775C vs all other crapola iGPU's. Also, they're all benchmarked at either 720P (even that would look like crap on a 4K screen), or 1080P on the lowest settings. Show me some benchmarks between the 5775C and the GPU's found in the iMacs... The new iMac is sporting a 21 4K display, Apple is being ridiculous (and cheap) by stripping the dGPU option... The gap would even be much bigger if Apple used Nvidia mobile GPUs like the 980/990.

EDIT: Went digging in one of your links and captured the images below from Tomshardware, yes it's the 7970, but that runs just a bit faster than the 285 which is basically a cut down version of the M390x.
The 7970 (basically a 390) is still 3X faster than Intel's best...
Click to expand...

Yes, but now you're talking about 27" iMac that has more thermal room for GPU.

21.5" iMac's have never been gamers dream machines. Former model had Nvidia 750M, and Broadwell iGPU is faster than that in most game tests. It is in fact tie with 760M and few percents behinds 850M on 3DMark tests.

Take a look for overclock3d.net's review again. In 1080p medium settings all tested games went over 30fps with iGPU. Worst was Hitman Absolution with 35fps. And for us non-hc gamers, 35 fps is quite good! I have Nvidia 750M on my rMBP and it has been more than enough for my SC2 and Civ5 sessions (no bootcamp/Windows) despite it's slower than Broadwell iGPU.

In Anandtechs 1080p medium testings GRID: Autosport got 53fps / 43fps minimum.

Some of maximumpc.com results in 1080p medium:
  • Batman: Arkham Origins 46 FPS
  • GTA V 37.9 FPS
  • Metro: Last Light 30.3 FPS
Sure some games are very demanding and they are playable only with low settings. These are still pretty amazing results for iGPU. Skylake with Iris Pro should be on pair with AMD M380. We'll see..

BUT, this sermon is not to defend iGPU as a good GPU for 4k. It is good enough to run most OS X software without hiccups, 4k videos included, and it runs many games on 1080p medium settings... but for 4k.. with 21.5" iMac's 125W thermal design they just can't do much better. No dGPU does miracles with 50W leftover. 21.5" iMac is not a FPS manhood extension.

AMD promised double perf/watt for next year... that could lead to more power... or yet more thinner iMac.

UPDATE: Iris Pro 6200 peak performance is 883 GFLOPS. So this is weaker than gaming figures. It is equal to:
Desktop
Radeon 7750
Radeon R7 350 OC

Mobile
Radeon R7 M360
GeForce 940M
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nlenz
Someone has posted a benchmark for the 395x:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/imac-retina-5k-disappointing-heat-and-fan-noise.1831739/page-8

On the same page someone else posted a similar benchmark for a 2013 iMac GPU (Nvidia 775m) and it slightly outperformed the 395x. Does this mean that the 395x does not give us an increase in performance over GPUs in iMacs 2 years ago? Or are there other factors to consider? It seems hard to believe that these new iMacs don't have GPUs with improved performance.
 
[QUOTE="KRMac, Does this mean that the 395x does not give us an increase in performance over GPUs in iMacs 2 years ago? Or are there other factors to consider? It seems hard to believe that these new iMacs don't have GPUs with improved performance.[/QUOTE]

AMD has been rebranding for a few years now. Looks like all the R&D budget went into HBM, sadly Apple didn't put it in the Imac.

So yes, it's another lackluster Imac update on the GPU front. Not saying the new 5k will be crap but. It's 3d performace wise a middle class machine. Compare it to a pc and you will start to cry. That's why some of us on this forum are so angry with Apple.

Some how apple doesn't feel the need to put in a decent GPU. Or even give us decent upgrade option. The cards are there, they just don't give us a choice.

Apple is design. It should look thin, cool and maybe even rose gold. But performance is not a must.
 
mjohansen said:
I got my i5 R9 M395X yesterday. So far I have only played Heroes of the Storm (1440p ultra settings) - smooth as butter and dead silent.
Click to expand...

Do you have other games like Bioshock Infinite ? Or other "recent" iMac FPS ? or even windows game on a bootcamp partition...
 
mjohansen said:
I got my i5 R9 M395X yesterday. So far I have only played Heroes of the Storm (1440p ultra settings) - smooth as butter and dead silent.
Click to expand...
OS X or Windows?

This is a ray of hope in spite of almost any other poster here ... as if the M395X wouldn't beat a measly 775M when the M295X was trading blows with a 970M. Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SBruv
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back