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

[Astelith]

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.

To play Blizzard's games under OS X a 1080 will be more than enough, I play now @ 5K with the M295X almost on ultra (except shadow and water reflection on Low) with a frame rate between 25 and 60, I could be very happy either with a 1070.
My point is, the 1080 can fit into the iMac, if Apple will use a RX480 it's a real pity.

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

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,.

I'm not really concerned about gaming on OS X (I have a PS4 for that) - my interest is in pro apps. Until a few years back cross platform pro apps used OpenGL, but recently the Windows versions have all shifted to Direct X. This has left the OS X versions lagging behind both in terms of features and performance. Where is the incentive to develop Metal renderers for such a small user base?

Apple may well discontinue OpenGL completely at some point, at which point pro apps could cease to exist on the Mac. The type of apps I'm talking about are from the likes of Allegorithmic (Substance Painter, Substance Designer), Adobe (Photoshop, Lightroom), Autodesk (Maya, Mudbox), Marmoset (Toolbag 2), Epic (Unreal 4), and Agisoft (Photoscan). None of those apps have any Metal support at all.
[doublepost=1472509898][/doublepost]

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.

It is of course entirely possible to put a 1080 into an all in one. It'll be 10% slower than the desktop part, but I'm sure we could all live with that.

 

[tomwvr]

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.

I have a 2012 and until Apple goes back to NVIDA I won't be upgrading.

 

[cynics]

To play Blizzard's games under OS X a 1080 will be more than enough, I play now @ 5K with the M295X almost on ultra (except shadow and water reflection on Low) with a frame rate between 25 and 60, I could be very happy either with a 1070.
My point is, the 1080 can fit into the iMac, if Apple will use a RX480 it's a real pity.

5k OSX gaming for Blizzard titles. Not exactly the majority of their user base. 1080 would be more than enough aka overkill?

Obviously that's what you want and I'm not here to change your opinion nor do I think it's wrong.

But let me ask, how much additional would pay over the base model price to upgrade it to a GTX1080 (mobile version)?

 

[tomwvr]

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

My 2012 Late has an NVIDA Geforce GTX 680MX with 2048 MB
It was the best card they offered so that is what I put in.

If they go back to NVIDA I will get the new one - if they stay with AMD I won't touch it
[doublepost=1472518262][/doublepost]

5k OSX gaming for Blizzard titles. Not exactly the majority of their user base. 1080 would be more than enough aka overkill?

Obviously that's what you want and I'm not here to change your opinion nor do I think it's wrong.

But let me ask, how much additional would pay over the base model price to upgrade it to a GTX1080 (mobile version)?

If I am going to spend 2500-3000 for an IMAC I would spend the extra for the NVIDA card, as a percent of the total cost it is not much.

 

[cynics]

My 2012 Late has an NVIDA Geforce GTX 680MX with 2048 MB
It was the best card they offered so that is what I put in.

If they go back to NVIDA I will get the new one - if they stay with AMD I won't touch it
[doublepost=1472518262][/doublepost]

If I am going to spend 2500-3000 for an IMAC I would spend the extra for the NVIDA card, as a percent of the total cost it is not much.

But how much? Say for example the model you wanted was 2000 dollars with a 1060 with 3gb VRAM. What would be the maximum you'd spend over that for a 1080 with 8gb VRAM (if such an option existed).

 

[vapourtrails]

So given the latest report on the from page what are the tea leaves saying about the iMac update? It seems like it will be a simple graphics card update and not much else.

 

[Crosscreek]

If I am going to spend 2500-3000 for an IMAC I would spend the extra for the NVIDA card, as a percent of the total cost it is not much.

There are no Nvidia drivers in Sierra...only AMD.

There are no Web drivers for Nvidia 10 series cards yet for OS X. I've been waiting to buy a card for my hack.

 

[CWallace]

So given the latest report on the from page what are the tea leaves saying about the iMac update? It seems like it will be a simple graphics card update and not much else.

The 21" will get a Skylake CPU and both the 21" and 27" will get Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C. The 27" should also get an AMD Polaris 400 series GPU - likely the RX 460 as the base with the RX 470 or RX480 as the option.

 

[agustinbg]

So given the latest report on the from page what are the tea leaves saying about the iMac update? It seems like it will be a simple graphics card update and not much else.

If we are super lucky, a processor update for the 27' (the 21' is a must); but that depends completely on the processors to be on time for the production line.

On the other hand, sometimes Apple surprises us and releases something completely new (but I don't really see that happening this fall).

 

[tomwvr]

But how much? Say for example the model you wanted was 2000 dollars with a 1060 with 3gb VRAM. What would be the maximum you'd spend over that for a 1080 with 8gb VRAM (if such an option existed).

The NVIDA I have in my 2012 was a 150 addition -
I would easily pay 200-300 for a NVIDA card top end over the base card.
Video Cards are what keep the machine functional for longer -these AMD cards are keeping me away from the 5k IMACS

 

[agustinbg]

Apple's obsession to make the iMac thinner limits considerably the kind of graphic cards it can use (heat and size); i think that's the reason why they stick with AMD (no need to change the case design to fit another card). Who knows. It's a theory.

 

[vapourtrails]

The 21" will get a Skylake CPU and both the 21" and 27" will get Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C. The 27" should also get an AMD Polaris 400 series GPU - likely the RX 460 as the base with the RX 470 or RX480 as the option.

I'm hoping they also leave some older USB style ports or I will have to upgrade all my external drives.

 

[agustinbg]

I'm hoping they also leave some older USB style ports or I will have to upgrade all my external drives.

The Apple's oficial USB-C to USB adapter is just $19 ... way cheaper than upgrading all your devices.

 

[Astelith]

5k OSX gaming for Blizzard titles. Not exactly the majority of their user base. 1080 would be more than enough aka overkill?

Obviously that's what you want and I'm not here to change your opinion nor do I think it's wrong.

But let me ask, how much additional would pay over the base model price to upgrade it to a GTX1080 (mobile version)?

The 2014 5K I currently own was almost 4K€ with the M295X, let's say I don't mind to put an extra 500/600 or even more on the plate.
As main use I do Photoshop, Cubase, Final Cut and some other apps and I don't play games often, but when I do I want horsepower if is possible and between the capabilities of the AIO form factor, I hate AMD video cards, as much as I hate Windows, so build an additional gaming PC for 2,5/3K€ is not an option, also because I love my 5K screen and at this point I'm willing to pay even 5K€ for a 1080 iMac, and probably I'm not alone

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

The 2014 5K I currently own was almost 4K€ with the M295X, let's say I don't mind to put an extra 500/600 or even more on the plate.
As main use I do Photoshop, Cubase, Final Cut and some other apps and I don't play games often, but when I do I want horsepower if is possible and between the capabilities of the AIO form factor, I hate AMD video cards, as much as I hate Windows, so build an additional gaming PC for 2,5/3K€ is not an option, also because I love my 5K screen and at this point I'm willing to pay even 5K€ for a 1080 iMac, and probably I'm not alone

You could always buy a PS4 Neo when they come out soon. That should give you a 1080/60 system with an amazing library of games. Then you don't have to worry about terrible Mac game performance.

 

[Astelith]

You could always buy a PS4 Neo when they come out soon. That should give you a 1080/60 system with an amazing library of games. Then you don't have to worry about terrible Mac game performance.

I hate console and I only play Blizzy games under OS X because I can do a lot of many other things in between, and I love my 5K screen (for the resolution and the design), so I don't have a lot of choices right now, a Thunderbolt 5K Display could open a lot of scenarios but we have to wait October I think.

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

I hate console and I only play Blizzy games under OS X because I can do a lot of many other things in between, and I love my 5K screen (for the resolution and the design), so I don't have a lot of choices right now, a Thunderbolt 5K Display could open a lot of scenarios but we have to wait October I think.

Dell make a 5K display which uses the same panel as the 5K iMac. It isn't cheap but prices have fallen considerably since it launched. I'll be picking one up soon in fact.

 

[Astelith]

Dell make a 5K display which uses the same panel as the 5K iMac. It isn't cheap but prices have fallen considerably since it launched. I'll be picking one up soon in fact.

Here you can buy the Dell for 884€ but at the moment the only option is a Mac Pro Cylinder plus an eGPU, so is equal to waste a truckload of money, with a possible upgrade soon of the Macs I can wait with my 5K and my 25 to 60 fps

 

[Sakurambo-kun]

Here you can buy the Dell for 884€ but at the moment the only option is a Mac Pro Cylinder plus an eGPU, so is equal to waste a truckload of money, with a possible upgrade soon of the Macs I can wait with my 5K and my 25 to 60 fps

I'll be plugging one into a PC with a GTX1080. Should be a nice little setup.

 

[tomwvr]

Apple's obsession to make the iMac thinner limits considerably the kind of graphic cards it can use (heat and size); i think that's the reason why they stick with AMD (no need to change the case design to fit another card). Who knows. It's a theory.

The NVIDA was in my 2012 which is the same case as the current IMAC.

 

[agustinbg]

The NVIDA was in my 2012 which is the same case as the current IMAC.

I guess... my argument is invalid!

Pfff, who knows what considerations Apple takes when selecting a supplier. There must be a powerful one to go AMD. (I've read somewhere that maybe it's because of how well documented it is; as Apple has to write all of the drivers and stuff... but then again, I'm not sure)

 

[iMcLovin]

I guess... my argument is invalid!

Pfff, who knows what considerations Apple takes when selecting a supplier. There must be a powerful one to go AMD. (I've read somewhere that maybe it's because of how well documented it is; as Apple has to write all of the drivers and stuff... but then again, I'm not sure)

I think the reason is quite clear.....money and convenience! Apple got a good discount deal from AMD so probably they have signed a long term deal of exclusivity. Something that benefit Apple and benefit AMD because they were struggling to stay alive. Also it makes life easier for apple, because the 5K screen requires some additional stuff which I dont understand, Im sure they prefer not making sure it works for all kinds of GPUS. So laziness and money I guess.

What I dont understand is that Apple has been striving to be considered a premium manufacturer of computers, and you would expect them to pick out the bast hardware options for their customers to choose from. Especially in the high priced BTO options, you should be able to pick the very best components....heck they charge you out of the nose for it. Right now Im starting to feel like the donkeys in Tom & Jerry, sitting with a classy slick machine knowing I paid tons of money for, and for everything else than the lightweight tasks, the machine doesn't perform great. Apple seem to be more focused on the outside than the inside of these machines.


I never been extremely focused on the detailed specs of every component.
But, currently the gap between Macs and what you can actually get for the big bucks regarding hardware has become too big. I just ordered my own PC components the other day. the machine Im building will be something like 4X faster than my maxed out 5K imac in pretty much every aspect. and it will cost me about the same as it would to buy the next iMac 5K maxed out BTO. So, this is a better solution for me. Finally I will have a machine that renders quickly and with an awesome GPU - And I no longer needs to be told by Apple what GPU I should buy.

 

[theitsage]

Tim is a supply chain guy. The best there is in the tech world. He makes decisions based on costs to yield the highest margins for Apple products. AMD is clearly the more cost effective solution for the time being.

Apple in its current form is similar to a restaurant which was a Michelin 3 star years ago. When you go there, the dishes may look fancy but there's no real substance to it. The founding chef is no longer in the kitchen. You got a replacement cook.

 

[Georgio]

Tim is a supply chain guy. The best there is in the tech world. He makes decisions based on costs to yield the highest margins for Apple products. AMD is clearly the more cost effective solution for the time being.

Apple in its current form is similar to a restaurant which was a Michelin 3 star years ago. When you go there, the dishes may look fancy but there's no real substance to it. The founding chef is no longer in the kitchen. You got a replacement cook.

Basically the AMD chips were surplus from PS4 production, Apple saw an opportunity for some cheap chips, dropped NVidia and went AMD.
My current Mac is a 2012 with a 680MX GPU and it is/was the best of the recent machines. I won't bother upgrading unless Apple go with a better GPU than the current AMD crop, preferably NVidia.