This can be explained by the iMacs taking advantage of Intel QuickSync Video, which allows i5 and i7 Macs to render H.264 video more quickly than can Macs with Xeon processors.)
In this case each iMac outdid the Mac Pro, with the Retina iMac doing the job in 1 minute and 26 seconds, the older iMac in 1 minute and 47 seconds, and the Mac Pro coming in last at 2 minutes and 31 seconds.
(Previous to this, I exported the same clip with effects using Final Cut Pro’s Apple Device 720p preset.
When you’re not looking at the screen, the new iMac looks the same as its predecessors. The Mac Pro scored an average CPU score of 930, the Retina iMac scored 530, and the older iMac, 452. By the numbersįor those who like raw performance numbers, I ran Cinebench’s CPU and OpenGL tests on each computer. So I chose tests that focused on processing and graphics power rather than disk-intensive tasks. The Mac Pro and Retina iMac, with their SSD and Fusion drives, respectively, have a significant edge in regard to reading and writing data-the older iMac’s spinning hard drive just can’t match their speed. I thought I’d find out by conducting a few performance tests between it, Apple’s top of the line Mac Pro (3.5 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon E5 with 16GB RAM), and the late 2012 27-inch iMac (with a 3.2 GHz Intel Core i5 with 8GB RAM). But can it can come anywhere close to Apple’s top of the line Mac? Rob Schultz The base model includes a 3.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor, 8GB of memory, a 1TB Fusion Drive, an AMD Radeon R9 M290X graphics processor with 2GB of GDDR5 memory, two Thunderbolt 2 ports, four USB 3 ports, and 802.11ac wireless. After all, it offers a display that, from another manufacturer, would cost the $2,500 Apple asks for the iMac. The iMac with 5K Retina display is being touted by some as a viable alternative for professionals who can’t quite make the jump to Apple’s new Mac Pro. …until you compare it to the image as seen on an iMac with 5K Retina display. This zoomed-in image on a non-Retina 27-inch iMac is fine… IDG Note the crisper lines in the bottom image, taken from the Retina iMac. The example below should give you some idea of the difference in details with a high-resolution image. Where you’ll see differences that can be startling is in very high-resolution images and video. In many cases the benefits of the Retina display will be subtle-an effect that may make staring at a display for hours on end less fatiguing. Obviously, most of us don’t spend our time zoomed in hundreds of percent to admire our Mac’s screen resolution. 27-inch non-Retina (top), Retina iMac (bottom).
Zoom in on text and you can clearly see the difference a Retina display makes. Off-axis viewing was slightly better on the new iMac-the display was clear up to about 45 degrees off-axis-but the difference wasn’t breathtaking. With brightness cranked all the way up on each, the Retina iMac was brighter than the other but otherwise I’d have been hard pressed to tell one from the other. At first glance, when viewing Yosemite’s default desktop on each iMac, I didn’t see a great difference between the two. I had the opportunity to test the base model iMac with Retina 5K display alongside a late 2012 27-inch iMac, and did so largely to compare the look of each display. Apple The new iMac looks better when viewed at an angle, but the difference wasn’t as striking as we’d have thought. Additionally, Apple has introduced something it calls Compensation Film, which helps ensure solid contrast even when viewing the display off-axis. This is accomplished through the use of more efficient LEDs along with a special timing controller that coordinates the pixels. And it does so, according to Apple, while using 30 percent less power.
Specifically, this iMac projects 14.7 million pixels (at a native resolution of 5120 x 2880 resolution), which is four times the pixels offered by the standard 27-inch iMac.