I really hope for a 1080, but at least a capability to run a TB3 eGPU solution would be fine too, using the 5K screen of course.
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.
So realistically, what can we expect GPU wise this fall?
- Thread starter iemcj
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Honestly, I think it more has to do with pricing they get for the parts and the designs around the compute pipelines. The 395X for example has a better texture fill rate than the 980M (which is used for the whole UI), and while the pipelines aren't quite as good for shader work, AMD's pipelines have been surprisingly even with nVidia on OpenCL (you need CUDA to let the nVidia chips pull ahead), and the 395X puts a lot more pipelines than the 980M on the die to keep it that way.
These are the things Apple cares about when picking parts, really. Being able to drive the UI, and OpenCL. Sticking to one vendor enables bulk purchases on top of that for a single generation.
Pascal is interesting because they added more pipeline units for the mobile parts so they could close the performance gap with the desktop parts. And Pascal's desktop texture fill rate is huge compared to the 395X, with the mobile part supposedly getting 90% of that. Assuming the claimed numbers are in the right ballpark, then we are looking at some very good gains in the realm of supporting OS X's UI and OpenCL compared to the 395X.
That said, AMD is still likely cheaper. So who knows. But from an engineering standpoint, and not knowing what the mobile Polaris parts look like (they've only outlined the Tonga rebadged parts), nVidia looks like a strong competitor this time around, even in the couple areas Apple is more focused on that they'd pick AMD for.
If Apple ignores Nvidia 1080M, and releases a new iMac generation with AMD GPUs, then Apple is making a very poor decision. I would buy a new iMac with a 1080M GPU in a heart beat, but AMD? No thanks.
I, like many others, like to game now and then, and don't need the latest and fastest graphics card. Unfortunately, AMD's latest line of mobile GPUs offers way inferior performance compared to 1080M (and 1070M). Get with it, Apple!
I, like many others, like to game now and then, and don't need the latest and fastest graphics card. Unfortunately, AMD's latest line of mobile GPUs offers way inferior performance compared to 1080M (and 1070M). Get with it, Apple!
Apple has a long history of not selecting the best or fastest GPU, and I think the soon to be updated iMac will continue that trend
I agree. Apple will use AMD Polaris 10 and 11 for its next Mac lineup refresh. macOS beta has driver support for PCI IDs which belong to Polaris 11. RX 460, 470, and 480 are all reported as working in the Mac Pro tower and eGPU enclosure.
Dual Radeon RX 480s in Mac Pro 5,1
Radeon RX 480 eGPU build
Radeon RX 470 in Mac Pro 5,1
Radeon RX 460 in Mac Pro 5,1
Last edited:
I know this is meant for laptops, but maybe this is the best and only solution for us iMac users in the future if we want proper GPU and still be on Macs. Since nothing happens with Apple these days. Guess these guys announced this product with a perfect timing: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/thewolfe/the-wolfe-supercharge-your-laptop
eGPU is certainly the way to go for Macs. I wouldn't consider the GTX 950 to be much of an improvement though. The Wolfe kickstarter is another modified Thunderbolt box which has been done for at least a year.
Looking through the specs, I can tell you they're using a Dell DA-2 220W power brick and a Thunderbolt 2 board similar to that of AKiTiO box. You can build one now for $230 and a solder gun.
To really make use of any GPU available, an ATX PSU is a prerequisite. Here's an example of the enclosure I built last week which has eGPU w/ GTX 980 Ti, slot loading optical drive, external drive, USB 3, eSATA port, and ethernet port - all available through one single Thunderbolt cable.
Looking through the specs, I can tell you they're using a Dell DA-2 220W power brick and a Thunderbolt 2 board similar to that of AKiTiO box. You can build one now for $230 and a solder gun.
To really make use of any GPU available, an ATX PSU is a prerequisite. Here's an example of the enclosure I built last week which has eGPU w/ GTX 980 Ti, slot loading optical drive, external drive, USB 3, eSATA port, and ethernet port - all available through one single Thunderbolt cable.
Last edited:
Except, I think it helps to understand why Apple picks what they do. They randomly include nVidia hardware, so why? Is it really the simplistic view of price, or some sort of bulk deal? Or is Apple looking at particular niches, that we on this forum honestly don't care about if we want 3D/Game performance. With how the view hierarchy works, texture fill is more important than pixel fill when dealing with apps built on top of AppKit, something the 395X is genuinely better than the 980M at.
I could definitely live with an M495X or whatever it will be called if it lives up to the promises of Polaris. Unfortunately, AMD has been very quiet on what the mobile Polaris parts look like (and the RX490 for desktop), which is somewhat troubling. The Pascal mobile parts look very solid across the board, and would have been a great BTO option for the iMac for those who do care about getting some gaming perf out of it.
This though, definitely deflates my bubble. Since the drivers are showing up, that basically seals the deal. Shipping Sierra in Sept with the drivers would mean they could ship new hardware off that or a .1 update easily in the Sept/Oct timeframe. So yeah, that's about as close to confirmation as we can get at this point. I'm just glad this also helps confirm we are getting Polaris parts rather than the rebadged Tonga parts. That would make me wonder if it was just better to save money and buy a refurb 2015 at that point...
Sure, but would that approach work for the iMac at all for people who would prefer not to have to go multi-monitor?
I'm a graphics professional and since switching back to Mac after many years on windows I'll be going back to windows soon. Mac 3D performance is just horrible. Open GL is a big part of that, but I can't afford to wait years on the off chance pro apps adopt Metal. More likely they'll switch to DX12 only and drop Mac support when Apple discontinues OpenGL. Vulkan may well have been an option to keep things multi platform, but as we know that's never going to happen on OS X.
Faster GPUs would be great of course, but OpenGL is at the very core of Apple's 3D performance problems.
Back on windows I'll have DX12, Vulkan, OpenGL 4.5, and a desktop GTX1080. Saddens me to have to bail out, but performance is king.
Faster GPUs would be great of course, but OpenGL is at the very core of Apple's 3D performance problems.
Back on windows I'll have DX12, Vulkan, OpenGL 4.5, and a desktop GTX1080. Saddens me to have to bail out, but performance is king.
Except Adobe softwares dont really utilize any of it. Which is what I experienced. Rendering after effects stuff on a fast pc vs. my iMac has no proper difference worth switching. 3d softwares is the only place I think you will notice it, in the viewport and gpu renderers such as Octane. My stress tests of PCs lately has proven to me that, at least for Adobe programs, Im better of with OS X and less hassle with my tablets pressure falling out or wacom driver not working, etc etc, which is stuff I experience on the PC all the time and is just as annoying for me as a slow gpu. I dont render that often, and when I do I use Rebus farm anyway, which beats the speed of any home computer. But, if 3d is your main occupation and you use GPU accellerated renderers, then of course, getting a windows machine is a much better option.
All Im saying, is, if you enjoy OSX as an operating system more than windows (I certainly do) then do a few comparison tests before you jump ship. I been considering jumping ship this whole year, but Im gonna hold out till the end of 2016 to see if apple can manage to update their Mac hardware or not. And, later on Ill probably get a PC as well, so I can get the best of both worlds...3d applications and gaming on the PC and Adobe on the Mac...
Except Adobe softwares dont really utilize any of it. Which is what I experienced. Rendering after effects stuff on a fast pc vs. my iMac has no proper difference worth switching. 3d softwares is the only place I think you will notice it, in the viewport and gpu renderers such as Octane. My stress tests of PCs lately has proven to me that, at least for Adobe programs, Im better of with OS X and less hassle with my tablets pressure falling out or wacom driver not working, etc etc, which is stuff I experience on the PC all the time and is just as annoying for me as a slow gpu. I dont render that often, and when I do I use Rebus farm anyway, which beats the speed of any home computer. But, if 3d is your main occupation and you use GPU accellerated renderers, then of course, getting a windows machine is a much better option.
All Im saying, is, if you enjoy OSX as an operating system more than windows (I certainly do) then do a few comparison tests before you jump ship. I been considering jumping ship this whole year, but Im gonna hold out till the end of 2016 to see if apple can manage to update their Mac hardware or not. And, later on Ill probably get a PC as well, so I can get the best of both worlds...3d applications and gaming on the PC and Adobe on the Mac...
I've still got my old windows box set up, so I've done plenty of comparisons. It's a little unfair of course as my PC is hooked up to an old 27" 1440p display, but for what it's worth I find Photoshop to be quicker on windows with heavily layered documents. It's most likely a fill rate issue. Other apps I use often, such as zBrush and Maya are also faster on windows, but the big one is Allegorithmic's Substance Designer, which is many, many times quicker on windows. The difference is really night and day. The Mac version is basically broken so bad is the performance.
I thought the Polaris cards wold be a good upgrade. Why go for a refurb?....With Sierra just around the corner it obviously makes sense to bump the iMac at the same time.
I agree this is a likely scenario. Such a waste.
No new iMac for me, it seems.I still enjoy my late 2012 model, with the Nvidia 680MX which is very overclockable. 250+/375+ is 100% stable with hardly any temperature difference from stock speed, when using a static high fan speed (2250-2300rpm). And still getting considerably lower temperatures with Nvidia at aggressive overclocks, than using AMD at stock speed.
Last edited:
On the front page news is mentioned, that there's a trace of TB3 and USB 3.1 in macOS Sierra. So, sounds like Intel will stay this round in most / every Mac and Zen+ not before next round. With TB3, eGPU will become very likely option.
Yes the developers probably dont even bother to optimize their programs for Metal since they know the mac user base is minimal compared to PC. And substance designer really uses the GPU and Direct x on windows. So yeah programs like Substance Designer, Substance painter, 3d viewports in 3d programs, Unity, Octane, Unreal Engine, Zbrush, Maya of course benefits from a proper Direct X Windows PC's with a good graphics card. ...Sadly Macs will never compete on that stuff...which is sad. and within a few years Adobe has probably optimized all their Adobe softwares for multiple cores and GPU rendering across everything, and then there will be no sensible reason for any artist to stay on a Mac anymore.
Echo chamber in here. If you are waiting for a 10 series GPU please go buy/build a PC.
Its price vs usefulness based on its feature set in an iMac just isn't there. I'd even argue it would be a borderline dumb idea to stick it in an iMac.
The majority of what makes an nVidia 10 series an nVidia 10 series would be squandered on an iMac and MacOS.
Its price vs usefulness based on its feature set in an iMac just isn't there. I'd even argue it would be a borderline dumb idea to stick it in an iMac.
The majority of what makes an nVidia 10 series an nVidia 10 series would be squandered on an iMac and MacOS.
I strongly disagree. I don't have room for an iMac AND a PC. I'm also a casual gamer, and a 1080M would plenty for me - and it would fit perfectly inside the iMac. Why not make it a custom option for purchase, it's a win-win, except for AMD.
Apple aren't making elite products for a niche audience anymore. Apple makes mainstream products, and casual gaming is as mainstream as it gets.
I strongly disagree. I don't have room for an iMac AND a PC. I'm also a casual gamer, and a 1080M would plenty for me - and it would fit perfectly inside the iMac. Why not make it a custom option for purchase, it's a win-win, except for AMD.
Apple aren't making elite products for a niche audience anymore. Apple makes mainstream products, and casual gaming is as mainstream as it gets.
I'll elaborate more on what I mean. The 10 series from nVidia has a ton of raw power. Anyone using it could benefit from that to a certain extent. That I don't disagree with at all.
But as soon as you connect it to a lower response time, 60hz monitor that isn't gsync capable you've effectively kicked the legs out from under it. Compounding that with the omissions left out of OS X from Ansel, simultaneous multi projection, to everything in nVidias VRWorks.
Running Windows would be the only way to even get a small taste of the 10 series has to offer and even then you are very limited by the monitor and connectivity (for VR).
And with the price tag it carries I just can't see Apple going that route. Keep in mind this is just my opinion.
Let's keep in mind the 10 series was/is specifically designed and marketed for gaming and VR. All it's features are based on that. Yes, it's a very capable GPU for editing and the creative type but if you specifically go looking for a graphics card for that type of work nVidia takes you AWAY from their GeForce site.
I'd gladly compromise with a 980ti in an iMac if the price was right. Lol.
Because macOS will bring support for USB 3.1 Gen 2, it is pointing to Kaby Lake which will introduce native support for it. And because Skylake didn't bring Iris Pro 580 for desktop, I suppose next iMac will be release when Kaby Lake is out. 21.5" comes with new more powerful Iris Pro and maybe the starter model of 5k 27" as well.
If Pro -fever hits iMac too, it could be that dGPU is Pro -only feature.
iMac Pro features (my guess):
If Pro -fever hits iMac too, it could be that dGPU is Pro -only feature.
iMac Pro features (my guess):
- HDR display with adaptive sync
- dGPU Polaris 10 variants, maybe Vega too, if meets thermal requirements
- user changeable RAM
- more i/o ports
Last edited:
You are aware that iMacs have retina screens now, right? Obviously a 1080M is not "too much power". This is most likely a moot issue anyway. Apple did surprise us in late 2012 with the 680MX, so you never know.
Yes, they are high response time, non gsync compatible, 60hz 5k monitors. Pretty much the opposite of what the 10 series was based around. Let's be realistic if you are using a 1080 you'll want at least a 100+ hz monitor with gsync with the absolute lowest response time possible.
Don't get me wrong the iMac 5k P3 monitor is brilliant....for editing. Or just about anything short of gaming or other high FPS task.
This is the main reason I feel the 10 series is overkill for an iMac specifically plus, being used in combination with OS X.
Again these are my opinions. I don't have a problem with people wanting a 10 series nVidia GPU in an iMac.
I'd have to disagree with this. High refresh rate monitors are only really needed if you're gaming at 1080p or 1440p with a really high end card. The point of putting a 1080 in an iMac isn't so that you can game at 1080p at over 100 FPS (thus necessitating Gsync), so much as that you can game at native res (or at least close to it) with minimal compromises and still achieve 30-60FPS. That said, where Gsync would come in handy is making something like 40-50FPS feel smooth, as t's going to be damn near impossible to achieve a 60FPS lock @5K.
getting the best GPU in the imac possible it not to have higher refresh rates on monitors. Apple never been focusing on Gaming. But more and more softwares utilize the GPU, even apple does that. ANd you have cuda drivers for mac as well, as far as I remember. So if they provided Geforece cards on Macs, it would mean softwares can support cuda further. Like After Effects, when I had my old iMac with Nvidia I could render with raytraced settings and get reflections etc in...After I got an AMD card in my iMac all those scenes were completely unusable. it would take 10-20x the amount of time to render. Also if you use WIndows through Boot Camp or Virtual you would benefit from it. For me, if I didnt have windows as well on my Mac I could not own a Mac at all, cince my main 3d software is 3ds Max...and here as well I would benefit from a great GPU card. Also the GTX 1080 supports display with more than 5K, so Apple could supoprt their 5K screen easily with a GTX 1080m. So I dont really see what you would loose offering customers the best options available if they are willing to pay for it.
But, I dont think it will happen though
Just for the sake of good information, the Nvidia mobile is called the same as the desktop version, the difference is only in a slight base core clock, so no M version from now on, and that is really revolutionary, an AMD counterpart (RX 480) deliver half the performance with almost the same TDP (roughly 150W), probably the AMD RX 480 laptop version could have less TDP like 125W but still the performance gap is really big, not going with Nvidia to me it sounds a really bad decision, also because they can still put the 1060 in the base version to keep price low, with AMD the price can be lower of course, but we have to remember that moving 5K is not and wasn't an easy task.
Last edited:
I have a sneaking suspicion that they will pick a GPU with a thermal profile that will allow them to continue to make the case thin and ventless. If the current iMac is any indication then they are prioritizing form over everything else.