New 2019 iMac 5K vs 2015 iMac 5K

[jsurpless]

I currently have a 2015 iMac 5K 4Ghz & AMD Radeon R9 M395X with 4GB of GDDR5

Since I see some sluggish behavior as the game advances through the turns, I am wondering how much of an improvement I could expect if I were to get one of the new 2019 iMacs?

Thoughts?

 

[AspyrRyan]

By "sluggish behavior" are you talking about how long it takes between turns, or are you seeing a persistent low framerate?

 

[jsurpless]

Mostly just a lower framerate as the game advances...

I assume that you're with Aspyr? If so, I've been talking with Aspyr tech support and it was recommended that I turn down the graphics to Minimum. I've done this and it's made a good improvement.

It was just surprising, considering that I think I have a pretty decent setup and yet I wasn't able to play at Medium-High or so. That's why I was curious if a new iMac would yield much better results.

Right now, my game starts out at 60 fps and drops to 40-50 over time. Is 60 fps some sort of cap? Or could a more powerful machine yield better fps? Would CPU or GPU have more of an impact?

Thanks!

 

[AspyrRyan]

This is a frame limiter option in the graphic settings, but I think it's disabled by default.

I'm not sure you'll see a huge difference on newer Macs, but I haven't personally played on them. I was worried that you were seeing something more significant, like down to single digit FPS.

Gathering Storm itself is more demanding than Rise and Fall was, so framerates take a bigger hit.

 

[Ondolindë]

I'm not sure you'll see a huge difference on newer Macs, but I haven't personally played on them.

I am also thinking of upgrading mine. Wouldn't these specs from a new iMac make a difference? These are the new top of the line iMac specs.

• 3.6GHz 8-core 9th-generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz
• 32GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory
• Radeon Pro Vega 48 with 8GB of HBM2 memory

 

[jsurpless]

This is a frame limiter option in the graphic settings, but I think it's disabled by default.

I'm not sure you'll see a huge difference on newer Macs, but I haven't personally played on them. I was worried that you were seeing something more significant, like down to single digit FPS.

Gathering Storm itself is more demanding than Rise and Fall was, so framerates take a bigger hit.

When I was running at Medium-High settings, I was starting out the game at 30 fps tops... it would get progressively less over the course of the game

I am also thinking of upgrading mine. Wouldn't these specs from a new iMac make a difference? These are the new top of the line iMac specs.

• 3.6GHz 8-core 9th-generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz
• 32GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory
• Radeon Pro Vega 48 with 8GB of HBM2 memory

I've been trying to find out if Civ 6 would even benefit from the Vega... in other words, in others is it better to put $$$ towards the CPU upgrade?

 

[Ondolindë]

I've been trying to find out if Civ 6 would even benefit from the Vega... in other words, in others is it better to put $$$ towards the CPU upgrade?

Exactly what I was thinking. I always go full CPU performance myself first and the latest ones have 8 core i( now. Of course, I gather that if they end up doing Civ VII, it would benefit to have the graphics card upgrade as well, but every upgrade is definitely $$$. I did some rapid research online (check https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-pro-vega-48.c3395) and found this about the Vega 48. The relative performance compared with the closest to yours, R9 390, finds a difference of 16% performance as I see it. You can also see a comparison with other graphics cards. PC's of course are better there.

 

[jsurpless]

Exactly what I was thinking. I always go full CPU performance myself first and the latest ones have 8 core i( now. Of course, I gather that if they end up doing Civ VII, it would benefit to have the graphics card upgrade as well, but every upgrade is definitely $$$. I did some rapid research online (check https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-pro-vega-48.c3395) and found this about the Vega 48. The relative performance compared with the closest to yours, R9 390, finds a difference of 16% performance as I see it. You can also see a comparison with other graphics cards. PC's of course are better there.

View attachment 522112

Only a 16% performance improvement over a 4 year old GPU? That doesn't seem quite right, although I see what you're referencing. Doesn't seem like that's worth $450 to me?

Although, I did search for a 'AMD Radeon R9 M395X' which came up - seems to be more than 16% improvement, more like 2-3x?a

 

[Ondolindë]

Yeah, I thought that was not much of an improvement. I don't know. And it definitely would not be worth a $400+ investment if that were the case. But this performance appraisal could be wrong or I am looking at it wrong.

 

[jsurpless]

Yeah, I thought that was not much of an improvement. I don't know. And it definitely would not be worth a $400+ investment if that were the case. But this performance appraisal could be wrong or I am looking at it wrong.

I think that the comparison should be done against the Radeon Pro 580X to determine whether $450 is worth it

 

[Quindorrian]

It's not a fair comparison, though. Civ VI uses a lot of system ram as well. I have nearly the same system as you and the game uses 90% of my system ram. So, upgrading your ram alone will give you a boost. Plus, it's also a processor intensive game. These raw comparisons are never good, imo. Also, Macs have a 2nd video card in them to help render 5k, so that won't be reflected in any of this.

Personally, I don't think an upgrade other than system ram is worth it at this point in time unless you go iMac Pro which is a mega awesome machine. I plan to wait another couple years before I even consider an upgrade. What I love about Macs is that I know my machine will be good. Yeah, I may not have blistering performance in gaming, but it is good enough for me to enjoy what I play and at least it is super stable.