Ik sta op het punt om een iMac 27" 5K te kopen. Nu vraag ik me af of iemand al weet wat de prestaties zijn van deze machine. Waar ik benieuwd naar ben is hoe deze machine in de praktijk zijn werk doet. Wordt de iMac niet juist traag door het aansturen van zo veel pixels?
Graag hoor ik jullie mening/advies..
Groeten
http://www.macworld.com/article/2835032/apple-crowns-imac-line-with-27-inch-retina-5k-display.html
Ook zij komen binnenkort met testresultaten.
@Pieterr Ik zat Barefeats al in de gaten te houden, maar goed nieuws dat ze de maxed out versie gaan testen. Hopelijk snel een mooi grafiekje!
(Bewerkt door odo om 17:45, 21-10-2014)
The Core i5 Retina iMac is faster at single-core tasks but slower at multi-core tasks. The Core i7 Retina iMac is also faster at single-core tasks (25% faster than the fastest Mac Pro) and is also faster than the 4-core Mac Pro at multi-core tasks.If you're considering replacing your Mac Pro with a Retina iMac then these results show it's not a bad idea provided you don't regularly run heavily-threaded applications.
The Core i5 Retina iMac is faster at single-core tasks but slower at multi-core tasks. The Core i7 Retina iMac is also faster at single-core tasks (25% faster than the fastest Mac Pro) and is also faster than the 4-core Mac Pro at multi-core tasks.
If you're considering replacing your Mac Pro with a Retina iMac then these results show it's not a bad idea provided you don't regularly run heavily-threaded applications.
http://barefeats.com/imac5k1.html
The top iMac with Retina 5K Display is clearly faster than the fastest 'non-Retina' iMac in every speed test we featured here.In four out of six tests, the '5K' iMac was faster than the 'late 2013' Quad-Core Mac Pro. However, in the two tests where the Mac Pro was faster (LuxMark, FCPX Gaussian Blur), both D300 GPUs were used for rendering. The iMac only has one discrete GPU. If LuxMark was forced to use only one D300, the iMac's M295X would be faster.Though the 5K iMac is capable of 5120x2880 resolution, we ran Tomb Raider and Diablo III at the 'Best for display' 2560x1440 scaled setting. Not only did that make it a 'fair fight' but Tomb Raider is unable to run at the highest resolution. FYI, Diablo III was able to run at 5120x2880 which cut the average framerate in half (31 FPS).
In four out of six tests, the '5K' iMac was faster than the 'late 2013' Quad-Core Mac Pro. However, in the two tests where the Mac Pro was faster (LuxMark, FCPX Gaussian Blur), both D300 GPUs were used for rendering. The iMac only has one discrete GPU. If LuxMark was forced to use only one D300, the iMac's M295X would be faster.
Though the 5K iMac is capable of 5120x2880 resolution, we ran Tomb Raider and Diablo III at the 'Best for display' 2560x1440 scaled setting. Not only did that make it a 'fair fight' but Tomb Raider is unable to run at the highest resolution. FYI, Diablo III was able to run at 5120x2880 which cut the average framerate in half (31 FPS).
The 'late 2014' iMac 5K's Flash Storage is somewhat of a disappointment since it is no faster than the 'late 2013' iMac's Flash Storage. We were hoping transfer speeds closer to the 'late 2013' Mac Pro (and 'mid 2014' Retina MacBook Pro).
Nog meer fraaie resultaten op Barefeats: http://barefeats.com/imac5k3.html
The iMac with Retina 5K Display comes in two CPU 'flavors': The quad-core i5 and quad-core i7. Both ship with the AMD Radeon R9 M290X GPU unless you specify the optional R9 M295X GPU. We had a brief encounter with the 'entry' i5 model. Here's a snapshot of how its CPU and GPU performance compares to the top i7 model with optional GPU.INSIGHTSThe performance difference between the 'entry' iMac with Retina 5K Display and the 'fully optioned' iMac 5K is not extreme unless you are running apps that use all available cores. In the case of Cinebench's CPU Multi-Core stress test, the iMac 5K with the Quad-Core i7 CPU is 47% faster since it supports Hyper-Threading -- simulating 8 cores -- while the Quad-Core i5 with NO Hyper-Threading support 'limps' along with only 4 cores.We were surprised to see the iMac 5K Quad-Core i5 with the R9 290X GPU beat the Quad-Core i7 with R9 295X GPU in the GFXBench 3 T-Rex test. That's a head scratcher.When we are able to spend more time with the 'entry' iMac 5K, we will post more test results. And as we have opportunity, we will test the other permutations of the iMac 5K (i5 with R9 295X, i7 with R9 290X, etc.).
INSIGHTS
The performance difference between the 'entry' iMac with Retina 5K Display and the 'fully optioned' iMac 5K is not extreme unless you are running apps that use all available cores. In the case of Cinebench's CPU Multi-Core stress test, the iMac 5K with the Quad-Core i7 CPU is 47% faster since it supports Hyper-Threading -- simulating 8 cores -- while the Quad-Core i5 with NO Hyper-Threading support 'limps' along with only 4 cores.
We were surprised to see the iMac 5K Quad-Core i5 with the R9 290X GPU beat the Quad-Core i7 with R9 295X GPU in the GFXBench 3 T-Rex test. That's a head scratcher.
When we are able to spend more time with the 'entry' iMac 5K, we will post more test results. And as we have opportunity, we will test the other permutations of the iMac 5K (i5 with R9 295X, i7 with R9 290X, etc.).
De 'instapper' is (gelukkig) dus al een uitstekende machine.
PRO APPS: iMac Retina 5K versus other MacsWe tested three popular pro apps on the iMac with Retina 5K Display against the fastest 'late 2013' iMac Quad-Core i7 and three 'late 2013' Mac Pros.INSIGHTSThe iMac with Retina 5K Display was able to beat the 'late 2013' Mac Pro Quad-Core in two out of four tests. It essentially tied it in the Photoshop test. It beat the 'late 2013' iMac in all four tests.Obviously the iMac Retina 5K can't compete with the 6-core and 8-core 'late 2013' Mac Pros in terms of Pro App performance. Then again, you can't connect a Retina display to any model of Mac Pro.We are in the process of testing the above Macs using Logic Pro X. We will add that to this page soon.
PRO APPS: iMac Retina 5K versus other Macs
We tested three popular pro apps on the iMac with Retina 5K Display against the fastest 'late 2013' iMac Quad-Core i7 and three 'late 2013' Mac Pros.
The iMac with Retina 5K Display was able to beat the 'late 2013' Mac Pro Quad-Core in two out of four tests. It essentially tied it in the Photoshop test. It beat the 'late 2013' iMac in all four tests.
Obviously the iMac Retina 5K can't compete with the 6-core and 8-core 'late 2013' Mac Pros in terms of Pro App performance. Then again, you can't connect a Retina display to any model of Mac Pro.
We are in the process of testing the above Macs using Logic Pro X. We will add that to this page soon.
REAL WORLD SHOOTOUT: iMac Retina 5K i5 w/M290X versus iMac Retina 5K i7 w/M295XThe iMac with Retina 5K Display comes in two CPU 'flavors': The quad-core i5 and quad-core i7. Both ship with the AMD Radeon R9 M290X GPU unless you specify the optional R9 M295X GPU. Though we gave you a snapshot two days ago, today we have results for real world apps comparing the 'entry' Core i5 with M290X GPU to the 'top' Core i7 with M295X GPU. And we added the best non-Retina iMac Core i7 with GTX 780M GPU.INSIGHTSSurprise! The iMac with Retina 5K Display with Quad-Core i7 and the R9 M295X GPU was not always faster than the Quad-Core i5 version with the R9 M290X GPU. And both were sometimes slower than the 'late 2013' iMac Quad-Core i7 with GTX 780M GPU.Overall the 'late 2014' iMac with 4.0GHz Quad-Core i7 and R9 M295X GPU is the fastest of the three iMacs featured above. Whether it is worth the extra $$$ depends on what apps you consider mission critical. For example, Logic Pro X, After Effects CC, and DaVinci Resolve demonstrate the dominance of the Core i7 CPU with Hyper-Threading. Yet in all but one game featured on this page, the difference was much less pronounced.
REAL WORLD SHOOTOUT: iMac Retina 5K i5 w/M290X versus iMac Retina 5K i7 w/M295X
The iMac with Retina 5K Display comes in two CPU 'flavors': The quad-core i5 and quad-core i7. Both ship with the AMD Radeon R9 M290X GPU unless you specify the optional R9 M295X GPU. Though we gave you a snapshot two days ago, today we have results for real world apps comparing the 'entry' Core i5 with M290X GPU to the 'top' Core i7 with M295X GPU. And we added the best non-Retina iMac Core i7 with GTX 780M GPU.
Surprise! The iMac with Retina 5K Display with Quad-Core i7 and the R9 M295X GPU was not always faster than the Quad-Core i5 version with the R9 M290X GPU. And both were sometimes slower than the 'late 2013' iMac Quad-Core i7 with GTX 780M GPU.
Overall the 'late 2014' iMac with 4.0GHz Quad-Core i7 and R9 M295X GPU is the fastest of the three iMacs featured above. Whether it is worth the extra $$$ depends on what apps you consider mission critical. For example, Logic Pro X, After Effects CC, and DaVinci Resolve demonstrate the dominance of the Core i7 CPU with Hyper-Threading. Yet in all but one game featured on this page, the difference was much less pronounced.
(Van de blog van Rob Griffiths, degene die de iTunes/iOS sync bug heeft onderzocht.)
Should You Buy It?The iMac Retina 5K is indeed a stellar display with gobs and gobs of resolution. But the best uses for all that resolution involve working with visual content, not viewing it. It's a computer with a display for editors, designers, and photographers. If you're not one of those things, the sheer pleasure at looking at seamless renderings of text and interface might be enough to lure you in. Or maybe you have a lust for screen real estate but don't have the space for multiple monitors. If so, it doesn't get better than this. As someone who works with photos and video daily, yes, I really want this thing. But having to go back to last year's iMac doesn't fill me with dread.
Should You Buy It?
The iMac Retina 5K is indeed a stellar display with gobs and gobs of resolution. But the best uses for all that resolution involve working with visual content, not viewing it. It's a computer with a display for editors, designers, and photographers. If you're not one of those things, the sheer pleasure at looking at seamless renderings of text and interface might be enough to lure you in. Or maybe you have a lust for screen real estate but don't have the space for multiple monitors. If so, it doesn't get better than this. As someone who works with photos and video daily, yes, I really want this thing. But having to go back to last year's iMac doesn't fill me with dread.
ProsWorlds first Retina-class desktop computerFantastic image quality whether judged by eye or measurementGood balance of computer components insideConsHard to return to lower resolution monitors after using an expansive Retina-class panel
ProsWorlds first Retina-class desktop computerFantastic image quality whether judged by eye or measurementGood balance of computer components inside
ConsHard to return to lower resolution monitors after using an expansive Retina-class panel
Gewoon zelf lezen.
http://www.macworld.com/article/2842025/review-imac-with-retina-5k-display-is-among-apple-s-brightest-lights.html
http://www.imore.com/retina-5k-imac-review
Weve received several variations of the same question submitted to our feedback form: does the Retina iMac operate at 60Hz in its native 5120x2880 resolution? And if so, how is that even possible, given that DisplayPort 1.2 doesnt have the bandwidth to support that resolution and refresh rate?To answer the first question: yes, the iMacs display runs at 60Hz, even when driving all 14.7 million pixels of its native 5k resolution. Apple directly verified this when I asked; the company also told Daring Fireballs John Gruber the same.
To answer the first question: yes, the iMacs display runs at 60Hz, even when driving all 14.7 million pixels of its native 5k resolution. Apple directly verified this when I asked; the company also told Daring Fireballs John Gruber the same.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/11/a-week-with-the-retina-imac-closing-thoughts-on-apples-newest-desktop/
http://tweakers.net/reviews/3775/apple-imac-5k-retina-in-het-groot.html