So realistically, what can we expect GPU wise this fall?

[MoreAwesomeDanU]

Just read this article.

Really wish imac could be adopt some of this goodness...

http://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea...-gtx-1000-series-laptop-gpu-vr-ready-features

 

[iMcLovin]

Just read this article.

Really wish imac could be adopt some of this goodness...

http://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea...-gtx-1000-series-laptop-gpu-vr-ready-features

Yeah, thats some great stuff. I truly wish Apple would give us the option. This proves you can actually get a really good gpu into the iMac despite it being Mobile. If apple would let us choose 1080m, that would be something like a gpu boost of 3x compared to what you get in the current maxed out imac. Apples customers are willing to pay more for our machines so apple shouldn't short us on the hardware possibilities.
Now add the 1080m and some inventive liquid cooling for total silence and the iMac could actually become a breakthrough machine again that leads the way - showing that thinnes doesn't mean much of disadvantages. Im so sick of the iMac fans noise for every little demanding task I throw at it.
But since Tim Cook works on his ipad and probably never done anything CPU or GPU heavy tasks, the noise levels have never occured to him.

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

NVIDIA is launching their mobile pascal GPUs this week. Apple could release an iMac with a 1070m or 1080m but considering NVIDIA charges a premium for their faster GPUs and Apple is all about making money, I bet they go with AMD and their sub par offering. Bummer!

I also have been enjoying the rumors that Apple is switching to custom chips in their computers or possibly open sourcing macOS (so that it can run on any PC), thus explaining the long refresh delays to their hardware.

From the reports I've seen the mobile 1060, 1070, and 1080 are within 10% of the performance of their desktop counterparts. It's entirely within Apple's power to offer those GPUs across the iMac range, and the 1060 and 1070 would work fine in a Macbook Pro.

For reasons none of us can understand however they're no doubt sticking with ATI, which makes precisely zero sense. ATI's desktop parts are a generation behind NVidia at the minimum, and their laptop parts are an utter joke.

I guess we'll see this Autumn if Apple gives a stuff about graphics performance. Fancy placing a bet?

 

[iMcLovin]

From the reports I've seen the mobile 1060, 1070, and 1080 are within 10% of the performance of their desktop counterparts. It's entirely within Apple's power to offer those GPUs across the iMac range, and the 1060 and 1070 would work fine in a Macbook Pro.

For reasons none of us can understand however they're no doubt sticking with ATI, which makes precisely zero sense. ATI's desktop parts are a generation behind NVidia at the minimum, and their laptop parts are an utter joke.

I guess we'll see this Autumn if Apple gives a stuff about graphics performance. Fancy placing a bet?

It makes sense sadly, Apple dont find GPU to be all that important (thats not their biggest userbase) AND because they got a great deal with AMD for some serious bulk discounts...Im sure. Nvidia is ruling their market these days, same way apple does in their market...therefor they dont need to fight AMD on price....Same way Apple never do discounts. So, its sums up to two words: "Corporate Greed" and we, the consumers, are the ones that loose.

 

[Malus120]

Just for the record, I'm all for the 1080 (or even the 1070) being offered on the iMac. That would, in a word, be incredible, and I would open my wallet in heartbeat.
That said,

For reasons none of us can understand however they're no doubt sticking with ATI, which makes precisely zero sense.

I wouldn't say it makes zero sense.

Have you considered compute performance? AMD is much more competitive in terms of GPU compute than it is in gaming. Also, if you look at gaming performance with more modern API's such as Vulcan, DirectX 12, and presumably Metal, AMD does much better, especially when developers utilize async compute. Not saying they close the gap with the 1080, but it puts things going forward in a bit of a different light. Given that Apple cares a lot more about compute than they do gaming, and that they are likely more interested in performance with Metal than OpenGL, one could infer additional incentive beyond just BOM savings.

 

[maflynn]

Apple dont find GPU to be all that important

I remember seeing discussions regarding the DPU being used in the G4 Cube, and people complaining at how underpowered it is compared to PCs. I also recall similar discussions regarding the Powerbooks and PPC iMacs.

My point in bringing that up, is Apple has a long and illustrious history of undersizing GPUs, and even when they used a decent GPU that had (in the past) underclocked it for better battery but inferior performance.

 

[iMcLovin]

I remember seeing discussions regarding the DPU being used in the G4 Cube, and people complaining at how underpowered it is compared to PCs. I also recall similar discussions regarding the Powerbooks and PPC iMacs.

My point in bringing that up, is Apple has a long and illustrious history of undersizing GPUs, and even when they used a decent GPU that had (in the past) underclocked it for better battery but inferior performance.

Yes, and this is the reason why we cant expect 1080m in any iMac in the near future. Even if apple is well within the power to do so. The only thing that can change their GPU focus in the future would be if VR takes off and Apple would loose market because of negligence - Because this is one area I think Apple consider important.

 

[moep]

For reasons none of us can understand however they're no doubt sticking with ATI, which makes precisely zero sense. ATI's desktop parts are a generation behind NVidia at the minimum, and their laptop parts are an utter joke.

In the case of the new rMBP it seems to because they're targeting a new, even lower power envelope. The current rMBP has ~50W chips, the rumoured Polaris chip only has 35W. Chances are that we can thank Ive's obsession with thin devices for that.
Nvidia currently doesn't offer anything with Pascal in that power-range.

I'd like a 17" rMBP with a GTX1070. 6 core mobile Xenon, 4k display, large heatsinks, large battery, large keyboard, great speakers.
Make it absurdly expensive just like the large desktop replacement Powerbooks were back then. $5000-6000.
I'd have no problem paying that because I'd keep the machine for 4 years and it would be worth it to me.

Realistically I'll settle with a pointlessly thin redesigned 15" rMBP with an iGPU only and spend the extra money on a Hackintosh because the dinky low-TDP Polaris chip won't even be in the same ballpark as what was announced today, not to mentioned AMD driver support if you can call it that.

At least there's some hope that the iMacs get the new mobile Pascal.
What's the TDP of the M395X, surely it is close to the 100-120W of the GTX1080? Wasn't there a job offer floating around recently where Nvidia was looking for programmers with Apple experience for future products?

The only thing that can change their GPU focus in the future would be if VR takes off and Apple would loose market because of negligence - Because this is one area I think Apple consider important.

Sadly no, Cook already stated that they don't think VR is very important.
They do consider AR (augmented reality) a "core area of research" but that has nothing to do with the Macs and everything to do with the iPhone/iPad and iCar windscreen.

 

[iMcLovin]

Sadly no, Cook already stated that they don't think VR is very important.
They do consider AR (augmented reality) a "core area of research" but that has nothing to do with the Macs and everything to do with the iPhone/iPad and iCar windscreen.

Ok, but thats definately going to change I think. I can agree that VR currently for machines except gaming consoles is a niche market, but in a few years it will be standardised.

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

Just for the record, I'm all for the 1080 (or even the 1070) being offered on the iMac. That would, in a word, be incredible, and I would open my wallet in heartbeat.
That said,



I wouldn't say it makes zero sense.

Have you considered compute performance? AMD is much more competitive in terms of GPU compute than it is in gaming. Also, if you look at gaming performance with more modern API's such as Vulcan, DirectX 12, and presumably Metal, AMD does much better, especially when developers utilize async compute. Not saying they close the gap with the 1080, but it puts things going forward in a bit of a different light. Given that Apple cares a lot more about compute than they do gaming, and that they are likely more interested in performance with Metal than OpenGL, one could infer additional incentive beyond just BOM savings.

Trouble is, how do you utilise GPU compute? OpenGL is so antiquated on OS X that it can't handle compute shaders at all. Metal may be able to, but who uses Metal? You'd have more luck sighting Nessie than any app using Metal.

To me not offering Pascal in the iMac is inexcusable. Those chips are obscenely fast and would require minimal work from Apple to integrate. That said, I also think it's inexcusable not to build Vulkan into OS X, so I do rather find Apple's thinking deep into the illogical and downright baffling spectrum.

 

[AlexGraphicD]

It makes sense sadly, Apple dont find GPU to be all that important (thats not their biggest userbase) AND because they got a great deal with AMD for some serious bulk discounts...Im sure. Nvidia is ruling their market these days, same way apple does in their market...therefor they dont need to fight AMD on price....Same way Apple never do discounts. So, its sums up to two words: "Corporate Greed" and we, the consumers, are the ones that loose.

Then Apple is rather full of idiots or lunatics.
How can they not find GPU all that important especially when they sell a heavy pixel 5k screen Mac, that alone is a factor to consider better and higher quality specs.

And another thing. What's the point of iMac if it has specs of a laptop machine, why keep producing it in the first place? If Apple wants to shift its focus from the pro market (which is already doing) then just stop producing macs and stick to iPads, MBs and watch bands.

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

Then Apple is rather full of idiots or lunatics.
How can they not find GPU all that important especially when they sell a heavy pixel 5k screen Mac, that alone is a factor to consider better and higher quality specs.

And another thing. What's the point of iMac if it has specs of a laptop machine, why keep producing it in the first place? If Apple wants to shift its focus from the pro market (which is already doing) then just stop producing macs and stick to iPads, MBs and watch bands.

The iMac is a weird hybrid. The CPU is desktop class, as is the hard drive. Plus you can load it up with RAM. But the GPU is extremely weak which is insane in a machine with such a high-res display. Apple's abysmal OpenGL driver makes things worse than they should be too.

I'm a graphics pro and use a PC at work, but a Mac at home. Beautiful though the Mac's screen is, the performance gap is highly irritating, so much so that I'll most likely be buying a new Windows box later this year. Just waiting for Kaby Lake and the GTX 1080ti to come out. In the plus column iMacs hold their value well.

 

[btrach144]

From the reports I've seen the mobile 1060, 1070, and 1080 are within 10% of the performance of their desktop counterparts. It's entirely within Apple's power to offer those GPUs across the iMac range, and the 1060 and 1070 would work fine in a Macbook Pro.

For reasons none of us can understand however they're no doubt sticking with ATI, which makes precisely zero sense. ATI's desktop parts are a generation behind NVidia at the minimum, and their laptop parts are an utter joke.

I guess we'll see this Autumn if Apple gives a stuff about graphics performance. Fancy placing a bet?

It's easy to understand. AMD charges half or less for their parts. Apple loves the cheap parts. They don't care about NVIDIA's 10 series because it costs so much.

Apple can charge the price of a 1080m but only offer a 470m and people will buy it!

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

It's easy to understand. AMD charges half or less for their parts. Apple loves the cheap parts. They don't care about NVIDIA's 10 series because it costs so much.

Apple can charge the price of a 1080m but only offer a 470m and people will buy it!

Apple offers to end CPUs as BTO so they could do the same with GPUs. Does apple use NVidia in any Mac now?

 

[cynics]

From the reports I've seen the mobile 1060, 1070, and 1080 are within 10% of the performance of their desktop counterparts. It's entirely within Apple's power to offer those GPUs across the iMac range, and the 1060 and 1070 would work fine in a Macbook Pro.

For reasons none of us can understand however they're no doubt sticking with ATI, which makes precisely zero sense. ATI's desktop parts are a generation behind NVidia at the minimum, and their laptop parts are an utter joke.

I guess we'll see this Autumn if Apple gives a stuff about graphics performance. Fancy placing a bet?

AMD and Apple made Apples proprietary TCON for a single tile 5k display. There is much more involved then just dropping in a different GPU.

Besides, this is a feedback loop. Apple won't use a high end GPU specifically designed for gaming (yes the 10 series is specifically designed for gaming) because they don't have the dev support. Devs won't support OSX because Apple doesn't have the hardware.

Even if Apple did use a GTX 10 series devs still wouldn't care for a very long time since the vast majority of Mac owners won't have it i.e. no business.

Nearly all the features of the GTX 10 series that drive up the price up are moot with an iMac. Short of its raw power it's relatively useless. Multi projection displays, ansel, a lot of the VR features, it's support of Direct X, gsync etc etc. Keep in mind the iMac is uses a 60 hz display.

I'm probably one of the few that thinks using a 10 series chip from nVidia makes little to no sense.

 

[btrach144]

Apple offers to end CPUs as BTO so they could do the same with GPUs. Does apple use NVidia in any Mac now?

I believe the last mac to use an NVIDIA gpu was the Mid 2010 MBP? I can't believe it was that long ago.

 

[iMcLovin]

AMD and Apple made Apples proprietary TCON for a single tile 5k display. There is much more involved then just dropping in a different GPU.

Besides, this is a feedback loop. Apple won't use a high end GPU specifically designed for gaming (yes the 10 series is specifically designed for gaming) because they don't have the dev support. Devs won't support OSX because Apple doesn't have the hardware.

Even if Apple did use a GTX 10 series devs still wouldn't care for a very long time since the vast majority of Mac owners won't have it i.e. no business.

Nearly all the features of the GTX 10 series that drive up the price up are moot with an iMac. Short of its raw power it's relatively useless. Multi projection displays, ansel, a lot of the VR features, it's support of Direct X, gsync etc etc. Keep in mind the iMac is uses a 60 hz display.

I'm probably one of the few that thinks using a 10 series chip from nVidia makes little to no sense.

You might be right. Or Apple can do what's needed to get a 1080m into the iMac and still drive that display. It's not like the amd cards performs so well under the 5k iMacs. But beyond all complaints my iMac 5k performs pretty decent. I didn't buy it for gaming but for production after all...and after effects, Photoshop, unity 3D, Zbrush, etc and all performs ok on it. I just want an updated iMac for my refresh were the gpu and cpu performance it noticeable better before squeezing out 4K usd again. Also I wish I could do some benchmarking tests of a PC with 8 cores, 1080 gtx card etc. I recently made a benchmark test in after effects which used both gpu and cpu and ran it though my iMac and my sons gamer PC, which I bought last year, and the iMac won. (PC rendered in 6 mins and my iMac in 4) I don't remember the exact specs on that PC but it plays battlefront on maximum settings in 1080p, so games runs better than on the Mac of course. So it proved that the Mac isn't that bad when using the cpu and gpu through production softwares... It just isn't a good gaming machine.
But I'm still on the fence whether my next machine will be a new iMac or a beast of a PC - It all depends how long Apple will keep selling old machines... I would prefer to buy a new iMac in 2016, if I hear no rumors and nothing seem to happen in Cupertino I probably will jump ship. My personal preference in 3D software is 3ds Max so there's a lot of advantages of switching to PC for me as well.


Games on the other hand is second priority for me, which it should be for every Mac user. If not you are wasting too much money on a mediocre experience.

 

[cynics]

I believe the last mac to use an NVIDIA gpu was the Mid 2010 MBP? I can't believe it was that long ago.

2013 iMacs used nVidia

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

AMD and Apple made Apples proprietary TCON for a single tile 5k display. There is much more involved then just dropping in a different GPU.

Besides, this is a feedback loop. Apple won't use a high end GPU specifically designed for gaming (yes the 10 series is specifically designed for gaming) because they don't have the dev support. Devs won't support OSX because Apple doesn't have the hardware.

Even if Apple did use a GTX 10 series devs still wouldn't care for a very long time since the vast majority of Mac owners won't have it i.e. no business.

Nearly all the features of the GTX 10 series that drive up the price up are moot with an iMac. Short of its raw power it's relatively useless. Multi projection displays, ansel, a lot of the VR features, it's support of Direct X, gsync etc etc. Keep in mind the iMac is uses a 60 hz display.

I'm probably one of the few that thinks using a 10 series chip from nVidia makes little to no sense.

A fast GPU is important for many applications, not just games. A 5K screen has a heck of a lot of pixels, and the puny ATI laptop GPU in an iMac really struggles to draw them in a wide variety of applications. Try layering up a big document in Photoshop and watch the frame rate crash.

 

[mpe]

A fast GPU is important for many applications, not just games. A 5K screen has a heck of a lot of pixels, and the puny ATI laptop GPU in an iMac really struggles to draw them in a wide variety of applications. Try layering up a big document in Photoshop and watch the frame rate crash.

I am heavy user of Photoshop/Lightroom on iMac with M395 and never experienced slowdown due to GPU in latest version of CC software. The GPU indeed isn't a greatest performer but it is adequate for most things except for 3D games at native resolution.

 

[iMcLovin]

I am heavy user of Photoshop/Lightroom on iMac with M395 and never experienced slowdown due to GPU in latest version of CC software. The GPU indeed isn't a greatest performer but it is adequate for most things except for 3D games at native resolution.

there is more. After Effects if you use plugins like Element 3d, game engines like Unity 3d and Unreal Engine, 3d programs in the viewport, Filters in video editing software (f.ex final cut pro use a lot of GPU), some renderes like octane. But if you work with still images for web and print, I agree the speed of a GPU isnt that important.

 

[cynics]

A fast GPU is important for many applications, not just games. A 5K screen has a heck of a lot of pixels, and the puny ATI laptop GPU in an iMac really struggles to draw them in a wide variety of applications. Try layering up a big document in Photoshop and watch the frame rate crash.

I've never had a problem with photoshop. And I use (and misuse) layers as a crutch for my skill, or lack thereof. Granted I'm not using a 5k iMac but the GPU is just that much worse (nVidia 775m). Even Final Cut Pro, is impressive with what it can accomplish given the hardware set...at least from the people that want to claim they aren't talking about gaming.

I'm not claiming there aren't any non gaming task that can slow down an iMac it's just few and far between and NONE of them require a 10 series nVidia GPU and if they do, well you shouldn't be using an iMac in the first place. Of course those people already know that and aren't using iMacs.

Ok you caught me, I actually use my iMac for deep learning and bit coin mining (simultaneously of course).

 

[btrach144]

2013 iMacs used nVidia

Ah, yes! You are correct. So it's been 3 years since Apple has announced an NVIDIA GPU equipped Mac. Kinda sad considering AMD is currently crap. I wish that weren't the case but it is.

Pretty without their Apple, PS4, and Xbox One contract AMD would be dead in a ditch.

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

I am heavy user of Photoshop/Lightroom on iMac with M395 and never experienced slowdown due to GPU in latest version of CC software. The GPU indeed isn't a greatest performer but it is adequate for most things except for 3D games at native resolution.

I disagree, but then I'm used to using Photoshop on a high end PC too. It's all fill rate related, which is directly tied to the huge screen resolution and the weak GPU's inability to render pixels quickly enough.

 

[maflynn]

The GPU indeed isn't a greatest performer but it is adequate for most things except for 3D games at native resolution.

I'm happy with the M395 as well, its a solid performer, I certainly can understand the desire to get a better GPU especially given what AMD and Nvidia have rolled out recently. That of course has no bearing on me, since I already spent a lot money on my machine and I'm planning on keeping it a long time