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

[joema2]

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.

The iMac 27 case is not ventless. The intake vents are on the bottom edge and the exhaust vent is on the back. If it were ventless people would not be discussing fan noise.

The M395X in the 2015 iMac 27 has a TDP of about 125 watts. The TDP on the GTX-1080m is about 150 watts, so that's probably within an achievable range on the current physical design. There will probably be an AMD Polaris GPU with good performance below 150 watts TDP that would be suitable for the current iMac 27 design. It was probably be much faster than the current M395X.

 

[Zarniwoop]

With Apple pricing a la Apple-tax iMac with GTX 1080M CTO option would have a price tag of $3299 USD with Core i5, 8 GB of RAM and 2Tb Fusion Drive. Upgrade to i7 $250 + 16GB RAM $200 = $3749. I suppose it's not going to sell like hotcakes. But for some it would take the need to spend money on the blue little pills...

 

[Mac32]

If Apple had any good sense, they could keep their AMD GPUs, but offer the Nvidia 1080M as a custom upgrade. Why not more choices? Those who would like to get the 1080M, could then buy it. Apple is getting very big and has many types of customers, and should offer more GPU choices for their iMacs. It's a no-brainer in my opinion.

 

[Hank Carter]

The iMac 27 case is not ventless. The intake vents are on the bottom edge and the exhaust vent is on the back. If it were ventless people would not be discussing fan noise.

Let me be more accurate. Poorly ventilated so the case can remain nearly featureless and thin edged.

 

[cynics]

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.

The 480 is on par with the 1060 as expected.

No where near the 1080 obviously but the price is right. I think (could be wrong) the best nVidia GPU Apple used was the 780m. It's desktop equivalent the 780 was $500 on release. I believe the cheapest 1080 is $650. RX480 4gb is $200 dollars.

That sounds bad for the enthusiast but typical users aren't us. So it could give the iMac a much better price tag to entice sales.

 

[Crosscreek]

I believe the cheapest 1080 is $650. RX480 4gb is $200 dollars.

That sounds bad for the enthusiast but typical users aren't us. So it could give the iMac a much better price tag to entice sales.

The problem is that Apple will probably charge 1080 prices for that 480/4GB card.

 

[pmau]

If Apple had any good sense, they could keep their AMD GPUs, but offer the Nvidia 1080M as a custom upgrade. Why not more choices? Those who would like to get the 1080M, could then buy it. Apple is getting very big and has many types of customers, and should offer more GPU choices for their iMacs. It's a no-brainer in my opinion.

Apple does care too much about form factor und power consumption.
It's not that Apple could not offer, they just don't want to.

Bigger power supply, more heat, more fans, etc.

 

[Crosscreek]

No where near the 1080 obviously but the price is right. I think (could be wrong) the best nVidia GPU Apple used was the 780m. It's desktop equivalent the 780 was $500 on release. I believe the cheapest 1080 is $650. RX480 4gb is $200 dollars.

I personally struggling with whether to go with the 1060 or 480 for my hack. They are both equal on performance but the advantage for the 480 is I can add another one and crossfire for close to 1080 performance at a more agreeable price.

 

[CWallace]

AppleInsider just published an article on the MacBook Pro Refresh GPU and they are of the opinion it will be the AMD Polaris RX 400 series chips.

HP has released a laptop with a mobile RX 460 chip inside it and it evidently within a few FPS of the desktop RX 460 chip. So that one is probably a given for the MBP as an option. Not sure if the 470 or 480 are out and if they would work with the MBP's thermal profile, but if they are out, they could be options for the 27" iMac refresh.

 

[AlexGraphicD]

AppleInsider just published an article on the MacBook Pro Refresh GPU and they are of the opinion it will be the AMD Polaris RX 400 series chips.

HP has released a laptop with a mobile RX 460 chip inside it and it evidently within a few FPS of the desktop RX 460 chip. So that one is probably a given for the MBP as an option. Not sure if the 470 or 480 are out and if they would work with the MBP's thermal profile, but if they are out, they could be options for the 27" iMac refresh.

Can you post the link?

 

[cynics]

Can you post the link?

http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...aris-graphics-chips-in-upcoming-macs---report

 

[Astelith]

The 480 is on par with the 1060 as expected.

No where near the 1080 obviously but the price is right. I think (could be wrong) the best nVidia GPU Apple used was the 780m. It's desktop equivalent the 780 was $500 on release. I believe the cheapest 1080 is $650. RX480 4gb is $200 dollars.

That sounds bad for the enthusiast but typical users aren't us. So it could give the iMac a much better price tag to entice sales.

The problem I see is that the RX480 have a TDP similar to the 1080 with half the performance, and in my specific case, when I don't use the iMac for photo and video editing (main use) I play Blizzard games under OS X (WoW, Diablo, Starcraft) and the RX480 is even worse of a 1060:

 

[Algus]

It seems like Polaris is worth holding out for if we get it this year.

So let me ask you guys something because I am looking at a couple different upgrade paths right now.

1. iMac 5k 27'' It would replace my 2012 Mac mini and get me my 5k display. I was thinking of putting in the larger AMD card as I do game and it'd be a very big upgrade from my current Intel HD 4000.

2. A Sager or MSI notebook with a new Nvidia 1060 to replace my Macbook Pro. I rarely use my Macbook between my desktop setup (my mini is driving two 1440p screens at the moment) and my iPad Pro. This would be a stop-gap until we see what is going on with the Minis and this rumored Thunderbolt Display with an eGPU. Mainly for gaming but also when I need more mobile power than an iPad.

The Windows laptop I am thinking of would be a budget of around $1400 which would leave me $1600 for my desktop Mac down the road. I'd like to buy before the end of the year but if we're not getting Polaris chips in the iMac this year I am wondering how much I'd be shooting myself in the foot by getting the current iMac.

I've ruled out building a new gaming desktop as I'd rather have a Mac powering my desktop setup. And ultimately I don't really care about max settings as long as I get playable frame rates...which is starting to be an issue on some newer games with my HD 4000. I'd be targeting 1440p as my gaming resolution.

 

[Zarniwoop]

RX 480 suffers from high clocked GDDR5 memory. According to some tests, it takes more that 30W from the card. So, the GPU is not that bad as it sounds, but its performance will suffer with regular GDDR5 speeds...

Apple could use full Polaris 10 on iMac, but should limit the memory to 4GB and lower its speed.

 

[Astelith]

It seems like Polaris is worth holding out for if we get it this year.

So let me ask you guys something because I am looking at a couple different upgrade paths right now.

1. iMac 5k 27'' It would replace my 2012 Mac mini and get me my 5k display. I was thinking of putting in the larger AMD card as I do game and it'd be a very big upgrade from my current Intel HD 4000.

2. A Sager or MSI notebook with a new Nvidia 1060 to replace my Macbook Pro. I rarely use my Macbook between my desktop setup (my mini is driving two 1440p screens at the moment) and my iPad Pro. This would be a stop-gap until we see what is going on with the Minis and this rumored Thunderbolt Display with an eGPU. Mainly for gaming but also when I need more mobile power than an iPad.

The Windows laptop I am thinking of would be a budget of around $1400 which would leave me $1600 for my desktop Mac down the road. I'd like to buy before the end of the year but if we're not getting Polaris chips in the iMac this year I am wondering how much I'd be shooting myself in the foot by getting the current iMac.

I've ruled out building a new gaming desktop as I'd rather have a Mac powering my desktop setup. And ultimately I don't really care about max settings as long as I get playable frame rates...which is starting to be an issue on some newer games with my HD 4000. I'd be targeting 1440p as my gaming resolution.

If you prefer OS X than Windows and you play games at 1440p, the new iMac (amd or nvidia) will do the job just great, but if you have a 5K screen, trust me, you want to use it in native res

What is your main use of your setup(s) ?

In my case, owning a 5K iMac the scenario is hard right now, I want more horsepower on the GPU but I don't want to lose the 5K resolution and OS X, so if the new iMac doesn't have a decent GPU my only hope is a new Mac Pro plus a eGPU plus an hypotetical Thunderbolt refresh at 5K, but it will be a bloodbath in terms of money

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

It seems like Polaris is worth holding out for if we get it this year.

So let me ask you guys something because I am looking at a couple different upgrade paths right now.

1. iMac 5k 27'' It would replace my 2012 Mac mini and get me my 5k display. I was thinking of putting in the larger AMD card as I do game and it'd be a very big upgrade from my current Intel HD 4000.

2. A Sager or MSI notebook with a new Nvidia 1060 to replace my Macbook Pro. I rarely use my Macbook between my desktop setup (my mini is driving two 1440p screens at the moment) and my iPad Pro. This would be a stop-gap until we see what is going on with the Minis and this rumored Thunderbolt Display with an eGPU. Mainly for gaming but also when I need more mobile power than an iPad.

The Windows laptop I am thinking of would be a budget of around $1400 which would leave me $1600 for my desktop Mac down the road. I'd like to buy before the end of the year but if we're not getting Polaris chips in the iMac this year I am wondering how much I'd be shooting myself in the foot by getting the current iMac.

I've ruled out building a new gaming desktop as I'd rather have a Mac powering my desktop setup. And ultimately I don't really care about max settings as long as I get playable frame rates...which is starting to be an issue on some newer games with my HD 4000. I'd be targeting 1440p as my gaming resolution.

1440p gaming isn't really an option with an iMac, with the exception of lower end games (strategy and so forth). 1080p is doable if you don't mind lowering the detail, but don't expect console level visual fidelity.

If you boot into Windows then 1440p is just about a viable option on medium detail. Essentially iMacs are hit by a nasty combination of slow GPUs with very weak fillrate, and terrible OpenGL performance.

 

[Algus]

This is exactly how I use my current Mac for gaming actually. Basically I already play with everything on minimum. It is probably why I have gotten away with not having a gaming rig for the last few years.

My main use case is multiple VMs. I don't really need the 5k, I just want a third screen and a quad-core CPU. Thought I might drop the extra to step up the dGPU since I do like to game on the side.

 

[Astelith]

This is exactly how I use my current Mac for gaming actually. Basically I already play with everything on minimum. It is probably why I have gotten away with not having a gaming rig for the last few years.

My main use case is multiple VMs. I don't really need the 5k, I just want a third screen and a quad-core CPU. Thought I might drop the extra to step up the dGPU since I do like to game on the side.

So if you don't mind to use Windows that is the best way, buy a good Alienware OS X with the sole purpose of gaming is wasted, or at least don't go for an iMac, have you ever considered an Old Mac Pro tower 5.1 with a new GPU and a PCIe SSD ? this could be a good compromise if you still want OS X and if you don't need 5K resolution

 

[Kappsi]

I've been seeing a lot of talk about them using a polaris gpu this fall in the new imac, how much of a gaming difference would this make? Last year they made a big fuss about how the skylake processors had 40% better graphics bla bla but ultimately with the m395x we'd get maybe 3-4 fps better in games. Cinebench and other bechmarking software showed about a 10% improvement.

Is that what we're expecting here? I don't know much about how these polaris gpus are going to compare to the m395x. I'm sure on the low end, they'll crank out the m495x and another 10% in gaming peformance and the divide between gaming rigs and the imac will widen even more. But what about if they go with this polaris setup? Thanks guys!

Even with Sierra, Apple *still* hasn't updated their version of OpenGL. The current version wasn't even released this decade. The new versions have features that make things much faster, allowing speeds even near Vulkan. Not to mention DSA, which works around the terrible state machine issues that OpenGL has. But none of this is usable on OSX because it requires a much newer version of OpenGL than Apple supports. Sure, Metal exists, but why would anyone bother supporting it for such a small marketbase when Apple has made it very clear that they don't care about graphics performance on OSX. They don't have the vendor lockin they have on iOS, they can't force people to be locked into their API by not supporting OpenGL / Vulkan.

What I'm getting at is, if they were going to put in a proper GPU, they would have bothered putting in a proper OpenGL version to support it.

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

Very true. Proprietary APIs only work when you have huge market share, as happened with Direct X. I really can't fathom what Apple is thinking with Metal. They could have fully adopted Vulkan by now and been one of its biggest proponents, and support would probably have followed. Instead they have Metal with an adoption rate of essentially zero.

 

[mpe]

Very true. Proprietary APIs only work when you have huge market share, as happened with Direct X. I really can't fathom what Apple is thinking with Metal. They could have fully adopted Vulkan by now and been one of its biggest proponents, and support would probably have followed. Instead they have Metal with an adoption rate of essentially zero.

The point of Metal is on mobile. Back when it was introduced there was no Vulkan/DX12 to adopt, perhaps only AMD Mantle.

On mobile it does its job very well and a lot of UI stuff is based on it.

The support for macOS is not even one year old. I think the point on having in on desktop is to allow code reuse between iOS and macOS rather than build API for AAA desktop gaming,.

 

[cynics]

The problem I see is that the RX480 have a TDP similar to the 1080 with half the performance, and in my specific case, when I don't use the iMac for photo and video editing (main use) I play Blizzard games under OS X (WoW, Diablo, Starcraft) and the RX480 is even worse of a 1060:

That's perfect! The iMac monitor is 60hz why bother with paying for more then your monitor is even capable of displaying? Where is the 3gb 1060 and 4gb rx480 fall in there?

 

[Mac32]

1440p gaming isn't really an option with an iMac, with the exception of lower end games (strategy and so forth). 1080p is doable if you don't mind lowering the detail, but don't expect console level visual fidelity.

If you boot into Windows then 1440p is just about a viable option on medium detail. Essentially iMacs are hit by a nasty combination of slow GPUs with very weak fillrate, and terrible OpenGL performance.

I'm playing Metro 2033 Redux with a late 2012 iMac w/overclocked 680MX, and 1440p works just fine (40-60 fps) with high settings. Seeing that Apple is refusing to consider the far superior Nvidia 10XXM GPU line is frustrating. Using Bootcamp, gaming with Nvidia 1070M/1080M would have been great.

 

[Astelith]

That's perfect! The iMac monitor is 60hz why bother with paying for more then your monitor is even capable of displaying? Where is the 3gb 1060 and 4gb rx480 fall in there?

That was 3840x2160, 5120×2880 have almost double the pixels and we can expect a little decrease of performance in the mobile version of the chips mentioned, and with an overkill GPU @ 60fps means Vsync active and the GPU always lower than 100% utilization, so lower temperature and fan noise

 

[cynics]

That was 3840x2160, 5120×2880 have almost double the pixels and we can expect a little decrease of performance in the mobile version of the chips mentioned, and with an overkill GPU @ 60fps means Vsync active and the GPU always lower than 100% utilization, so lower temperature and fan noise

Triple A titles at UHD or higher you'll still want more than a GTX 1080. 5k is unrealistic to even consider on any GPU.

I'm not knocking it but I'm really surprised so many people entertain the idea of gaming on an AIO even more so a Mac AIO to fault the company for not catering to them more.