Mac Retina

I have a iMac 5K i5 3,5 (3.9 turbo) and its plenty of fast enough.
The Fusion drive is awesome too - very fast booting (about 5-6 seconds clean boot).

But most of all … the screen is really awesome. I use the iMac 5K also for my Windows app and I have to confess Windows 8.1 on a 5K display is great looking too. :slight_smile:

Anyhow, if you ones worked on a Retina screen, you don’t want to have a blurry ‘standard’ screen anymore. :slight_smile:

BTW I also have a MBPr 2014 i7 3.5 and I don’t feel a real difference between my MBPr i7 and my iMac 5K i5
I do recommend to have 16GB instead of the standard 8GB.

I like the specs of the 5K model except for the graphics. Im hoping the next version may use nvidia and a broadwell CPU.

How fast is my Mac?
How fast is another Mac?
How much Ram does Apple say I can use?
How much Ram can I really use?
What graphic card is in there?
What connections?
What storage?
Original OS? Max OS?
Etc etc

Answer: MacTracker

[quote=172143:@Christoph De Vocht]I have a iMac 5K i5 3,5 (3.9 turbo) and its plenty of fast enough.
The Fusion drive is awesome too - very fast booting (about 5-6 seconds clean boot).

But most of all … the screen is really awesome. I use the iMac 5K also for my Windows app and I have to confess Windows 8.1 on a 5K display is great looking too. :slight_smile:

Anyhow, if you ones worked on a Retina screen, you don’t want to have a blurry ‘standard’ screen anymore. :)[/quote]

How do compiled Xojo apps look on the screen ? And how about the IDE ?

No offense either, Markus. But never heard of MacTraker till now… :slight_smile:

The i7 in 2012 was a 3rd generation processor.

The i5 in the 5K is a 4th generation processor.

According to the first site that Markus linked the i5 should be 8.5% faster than your current processor. And the 4th gen i7 is even better at 21.2% faster than your current processor. (Using 64 bit single core numbers.)

[quote=172139:@Dave S]Markus… no offense… but if my question offended you, or caused you to waste time, then why participate?
And until now I’d never heard of “MacTracker”,[/quote]

I’m of course aware that not everybody knows MacTracker. Why would that offend me? I said you can save yourself and others time by using MacTracker.

It’s a tip about an app that I consider essential for info about Macs, in the same way that I consider Dash essential for programming.

“You can choose to be offended, but you are not oblidged to do so” :wink:

:slight_smile: … that’s the point. In my opinion a higher resolution/ better display always beats marginal CPU differences. So Detlef did it right I guess as along as he orders SSD harddrive and a lot of RAM but heck that’s another discussion…

depends on what you compare

[code] year 2012 2014 2014
CPU 3.4 GHz 3.5 GHz 4 GHz
i7 i5 diff i7 diff
32bit single 3185 3488 9,5 3892 22,2
32bit multi 12231 11064 -9,5 14570 19,1
64bit single 3592 3846 7,1 4354 21,2
64bit multi 13911 12225 -12,1 16596 19,3
avg 8230 7656 -7,0 9853 19,7

MacTracker 12884 10771 -16,4 15465 20,0
[/code]

From http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

While the single core performance of the new iGeneration is faster (i5 vs i7) the i7 will trounce the i5 in multicore apps

I absolutely second that and would like to put some weight on the bigger graphics card expecially. 2GB of the standard card may look mighty big, but considering the iMac Retina has a 5K display (ok, it’s usually used in a scaled resolution, but it’s fascinating you still can read everything if you set it to native resolution), it’s not that much. Depending on the applications you use and seeing that many tools are using the GPU for speed, a bit more free GPU RAM might be very wise.

(Not measured accurately, but as a rough scale: Image processing times including open/save of 200 MB RAWs in Perfect Photo Suite 9.5 beta are on an iMac Retina around 10 secs where I used to wait 90 seconds on the 2009 Mac Pro. Changing the computer brought this time to about 30 seconds and the rest is due to PPS now using the GPU a lot more.)

[quote=172219:@Markus Winter]depends on what you compare

…snip…

While the single core performance of the new iGeneration is faster (i5 vs i7) the i7 will trounce the i5 in multicore apps[/quote]
If your primary purpose of this machine is Xojo development then the multicore performance is moot until Xojo supports using multiple cores.

Oh, and one advice on the way: When you have decided and bought a new machine, better do not use the Migration Assistent. I wish I had seen the complaints in many forums before: It’s very unreliable and in not so few cases you end up with 99% done and the estimation rising to 30+ hours. When you wait that long, sometimes it finishes. With some chance the data will have been transfered but not unpacked, so you have a fresh installation with Gigs of invisible and unusable data.

It took more than two days and three phone calls to Apple support when I realized harddisk toolkit is not working correctly with the Apple built-in Fusion Drive and I could either not erase my drive or have it fragmented into 20 separate pieces …
Whenever possible, use Time Machine or CCC.

Not quite correct. Multicore is also an advantage when you run multiple apps. Even with development in mind you will run more than just Xojo. I usually have 20+ apps open on my Mac, plus quite a few utilities etc active in the background.

Agreed, and you can also call a library (through declares) that is multithreaded and use the additional cores. i do this for math routines. I made the decision to forego making my library a plugin for that reason alone.

Not if like a lot of us you have several apps running while you develop : Xojo, Photoshop, Mail, browser, virtual machine and so on. Then multicore is a real advantage.